[Bug 894602] Review Request: coin-or-Dip - Decomposition for Integer Programming

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894602

Susi Lehtola  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks|505154 (FE-SCITECH) |




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=505154
[Bug 505154] Tracker: Review Requests for Science and Technology related
packages
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 894602] Review Request: coin-or-Dip - Decomposition for Integer Programming

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894602



--- Comment #19 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com ---
Git done (by process-git-requests).

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 894602] Review Request: coin-or-Dip - Decomposition for Integer Programming

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894602

Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 894602] Review Request: coin-or-Dip - Decomposition for Integer Programming

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894602

Paulo Andrade paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs?



--- Comment #18 from Paulo Andrade paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com 
---
Package Change Request
==
Package Name: coin-or-Dip
New Branches: f21
Owners: pcpa
InitialCC: pcpa

Update coin-or stack.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 894602] Review Request: coin-or-Dip - Decomposition for Integer Programming

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894602

Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
   Fixed In Version||coin-or-Dip-0.91.2-1.fc22
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2015-03-31 17:44:02



--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
coin-or-Dip-0.91.2-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 894602] Review Request: coin-or-Dip - Decomposition for Integer Programming

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894602

Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
coin-or-Dip-0.91.2-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 894602] Review Request: coin-or-Dip - Decomposition for Integer Programming

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894602

Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #12 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com ---
Package approved.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 894602] Review Request: coin-or-Dip - Decomposition for Integer Programming

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894602

Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 894602] Review Request: coin-or-Dip - Decomposition for Integer Programming

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894602



--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
coin-or-Dip-0.91.2-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/coin-or-Dip-0.91.2-1.fc22

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 894602] Review Request: coin-or-Dip - Decomposition for Integer Programming

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894602

Paulo Andrade paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-cvs?



--- Comment #13 from Paulo Andrade paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com 
---
New Package SCM Request
===
Package Name: coin-or-Dip
Short Description: Decomposition for Integer Programming
Upstream URL: http://www.coin-or.org/projects/Dip.xml
Owners: pcpa
Branches: f22
InitialCC:

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 894602] Review Request: coin-or-Dip - Decomposition for Integer Programming

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894602

Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 894602] Review Request: coin-or-Dip - Decomposition for Integer Programming

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894602



--- Comment #14 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com ---
Git done (by process-git-requests).

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 894602] Review Request: coin-or-Dip - Decomposition for Integer Programming

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894602



--- Comment #11 from Paulo Andrade paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com 
---
Sorry for the delay.

About openmpi subpackages. At first I did choose
base coin-or-Ipopt only. The problem is that I
believe MUMPS should be able to run in either
sequential or parallel mode, choosing at runtime.

I had only suggested this in the past to upstream.
coin-or-Ipopt as well should support either mode
at runtime.

For now, I prefer to only do openmpi subpackages
if there is demand for it, and still, if there is
demand, I will suggest working with upstream to
make it a runtime option.

Update:
Spec URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-Dip.spec
SRPM URL:
http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-Dip-0.91.1-1.fc23.src.rpm

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 894602] Review Request: coin-or-Dip - Decomposition for Integer Programming

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894602



--- Comment #10 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com ---
- Fix:
/usr/bin/cat /builddir/build/SOURCES/coin-or-Dip-docdir.patch
patching file Makefile.in
Hunk #1 succeeded at 475 (offset -1 lines).
Hunk #2 succeeded at 484 (offset -1 lines).

- Please, use %license.

- An openmpi sub-package is envisaged.
  Why it's not built ?  

Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
 in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
 for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
 Unknown or generated. 330 files have unknown license. Detailed output
 of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/894602-coin-or-Dip/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
 Note: Test run failed
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Test run failed
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
 Note: Test run failed
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
 supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
 are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
 in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
 from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if 

[Bug 894602] Review Request: coin-or-Dip - Decomposition for Integer Programming

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894602



--- Comment #9 from Paulo Andrade paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com ---
Update to latest upstream release and to use the ampl solver
in the mp package.

(If you are testing it today, please run before
 koji wait-repo rawhide --build=coin-or-Cbc-2.9.2-4.fc23
and if making a local build, make sure to have that version.
Or, just wait a few days to have mirrors in sync :), it needs
this patch:
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/coin-or-Cbc.git/commit/?id=d1bcd03c2c6a9d197438ebaed8dfa944845a280b
that I reported upstream, and should be fixed in a newer
coin-or-Cbc upstream)

Spec URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-Dip.spec
SRPM URL:
http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-Dip-0.91.1-1.fc23.src.rpm

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 894602] Review Request: coin-or-Dip - Decomposition for Integer Programming

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894602

Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski domi...@greysector.net changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||505154 (FE-SCITECH)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=505154
[Bug 505154] Tracker: Review Requests for Science and Technology related
packages
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 894602] Review Request: coin-or-Dip - Decomposition for Integer Programming

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894602



--- Comment #8 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Paulo Andrade from comment #7)
 You mean the .pyc and .pyo files? Or the .so file?
 
   AFAIK .pyc and .pyo are per distribution policies, and Fedora
 by default installs them (personally I do not like it much
 because I saw a few packages that distribute only those to
 hide the sources, and usually they do not make much of a
 difference in load time, major issue is accessing files on
 disk, optimizing or compiling them in memory in python
 is way faster than having the files in kernel file buffers).
   The .so files are installed in the arch specific directory.


I meant .pyc and .pyo python files. Since the compilation installs just .py
files (I presume they are pre-compiled python files), this could be not
permitted by packaging guide-lines
(http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#No_inclusion_of_pre-built_binaries_or_libraries).

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 894602] Review Request: coin-or-Dip - Decomposition for Integer Programming

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894602



--- Comment #5 from Paulo Andrade paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #4)
 - Please, remove all libtool archives in /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-
   packages/dippy/

  I started doing that, then working on the python tests, but
found that to start would need to package
https://code.google.com/p/pulp-or/

 - I have some doubts about python files directly installed in 
   /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/dippy/
   Are they compiled or simply installed from source?
   .egg-info file is missing, too.

  That is what make install was doing.

 Dippy seems also distributed separately
 (https://projects.coin-or.org/CoinBazaar/wiki/Projects/Dippy), even here
 there are pre-compiled python modules. 

  Apparently the plan is to merge it in the Dip (packaged as
coin-or-Dip) project.

  For the moment I preferred to just remove python2-devel from
build requires, so the build would not detect python and not
build the python module.

  If you prefer, we can put this review on hold before more
clarifications on the state of the python module, and (pulp-or);
in the mean time I will try to talk with upstream about it.

  Update:

- Disable python subpackage, it should be packaged separately (#894602#c4).

Spec URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-Dip.spec
SRPM URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-Dip-0.9.9-2.fc21.src.rpm

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 894602] Review Request: coin-or-Dip - Decomposition for Integer Programming

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894602



--- Comment #6 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Paulo Andrade from comment #5)
 
  - I have some doubts about python files directly installed in 
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/dippy/
Are they compiled or simply installed from source?
.egg-info file is missing, too.
 
   That is what make install was doing.
 
  Dippy seems also distributed separately
  (https://projects.coin-or.org/CoinBazaar/wiki/Projects/Dippy), even here
  there are pre-compiled python modules. 
 
   Apparently the plan is to merge it in the Dip (packaged as
 coin-or-Dip) project.
 
   For the moment I preferred to just remove python2-devel from
 build requires, so the build would not detect python and not
 build the python module.
 
   If you prefer, we can put this review on hold before more
 clarifications on the state of the python module, and (pulp-or);
 in the mean time I will try to talk with upstream about it.

Honestly, my main doubt is if we can package pre-compiled Dippy python files.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 894602] Review Request: coin-or-Dip - Decomposition for Integer Programming

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894602



--- Comment #7 from Paulo Andrade paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com ---
You mean the .pyc and .pyo files? Or the .so file?

  AFAIK .pyc and .pyo are per distribution policies, and Fedora
by default installs them (personally I do not like it much
because I saw a few packages that distribute only those to
hide the sources, and usually they do not make much of a
difference in load time, major issue is accessing files on
disk, optimizing or compiling them in memory in python
is way faster than having the files in kernel file buffers).
  The .so files are installed in the arch specific directory.

   But I will wait for some upstream response, because I did
just blindly package the python interface, but did a better
job testing it after the review :-) and right now it would
be useless without PuLP (https://projects.coin-or.org/PuLP)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 894602] Review Request: coin-or-Dip - Decomposition for Integer Programming

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894602

Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|anto.tra...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 894602] Review Request: coin-or-Dip - Decomposition for Integer Programming

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894602



--- Comment #4 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com ---
- Please, remove all libtool archives in /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-
  packages/dippy/

- I have some doubts about python files directly installed in 
  /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/dippy/
  Are they compiled or simply installed from source?
  .egg-info file is missing, too.

Dippy seems also distributed separately
(https://projects.coin-or.org/CoinBazaar/wiki/Projects/Dippy), even here there
are pre-compiled python modules. 


Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
===
- Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
  Note: coin-or-Dip-python : /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-
  packages/dippy/_dippy.la
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#StaticLibraries


= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
 attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
 in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
 for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
 Unknown or generated. 313 files have unknown license. Detailed output
 of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/894602-coin-or-Dip/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 Note: No known owner of /usr/include/coin
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/include/coin
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
 supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
 are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
 in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[?]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[?]: A 

[Bug 894602] Review Request: coin-or-Dip - Decomposition for Integer Programming

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894602



--- Comment #3 from Paulo Andrade paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com ---
- Update to latest upstream release.
- Create new python subpackage.

Spec URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-Dip.spec
SRPM URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-Dip-0.9.9-1.fc21.src.rpm

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 894602] Review Request: coin-or-Dip - Decomposition for Integer Programming

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894602
Bug 894602 depends on bug 894589, which changed state.

Bug 894589 Summary: Review Request: coin-or-Alps - COIN-OR High-Performance 
Parallel Search Framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894589

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 894602] Review Request: coin-or-Dip - Decomposition for Integer Programming

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894602
Bug 894602 depends on bug 894597, which changed state.

Bug 894597 Summary: Review Request: coin-or-Cbc - Coin-or branch and cut
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894597

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 894602] Review Request: coin-or-Dip - Decomposition for Integer Programming

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894602
Bug 894602 depends on bug 894587, which changed state.

Bug 894587 Summary: Review Request: coin-or-Clp - Coin-or linear programming
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894587

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 894602] Review Request: coin-or-Dip - Decomposition for Integer Programming

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894602
Bug 894602 depends on bug 894586, which changed state.

Bug 894586 Summary: Review Request: coin-or-Osi - COIN-OR Open Solver Interface 
Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894586

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 894602] Review Request: coin-or-Dip - Decomposition for Integer Programming

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894602
Bug 894602 depends on bug 894588, which changed state.

Bug 894588 Summary: Review Request: coin-or-Cgl - Cut Generation Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894588

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 894602] Review Request: coin-or-Dip - Decomposition for Integer Programming

[bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894602

Bug 894602 depends on bug 894585, which changed state.

Bug 894585 Summary: Review Request: coin-or-CoinUtils - Coin-or Utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894585

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=4YIS71pKKHa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 894602] Review Request: coin-or-Dip - Decomposition for Integer Programming

[bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894602

--- Comment #2 from Paulo Andrade paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com ---
Update:

- Update to run make check (#894610#c4).

Spec URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-Dip.spec
SRPM URL:
http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-Dip-0.83.2-4.fc19.src.rpm

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Iyhns9V9jZa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 894602] Review Request: coin-or-Dip - Decomposition for Integer Programming

[bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894602

Paulo Andrade paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||894585, 894586, 894587,
   ||894588, 894589, 894597

--- Comment #1 from Paulo Andrade paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com ---
Note that the tarball is remade due to:
+ Data files without a clean license. licensecheck does not trigger
  it because they are small test case files, but a not so small
  collection, and authorship information was lost.
+ ThirdParty directory, that points to, but has no contents, of
  non free code (usually source code open but needs some kind of
  paid license to be able to use).
+ Most coin-or projects bundle other coin-or projects that are
  dependencies. If tarballs are not repackaged, %build will remove
  the bundled dependencies.

I made the original package back in september and was talking from
time to time to upstream about the issues above. There should be
at some point in the near future a new release with bundled dependencies
and code that cannot be redistributed removed from tarballs. There is
also a way to get clean tarballs from coin-or trac, but for the
review request I did choose the most common method in Fedora for
these conditions.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=4rWAJaPYLva=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review