Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: mpiwrappers - Environment module wrappers for MPI packages in RHEL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517849
Summary: Review Request: mpiwrappers - Environment module wrappers for MPI packages in RHEL Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: jussi.lehtola@iki.fi QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/mpiwrappers.spec
SRPM URL: http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/mpiwrappers-1-1.fc11.src.rp...
Description: This package provides a compatibility layer with the use of environment modules for the MPI compilers in RHEL to ease packaging of MPI software in Fedora EPEL.
**
See http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/MPI#EPEL
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517849
Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dledford@redhat.com
--- Comment #1 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi 2009-08-17 09:43:00 EDT --- CC Doug, you might want to take a look at this.
**
I'm not totally sure if support for mvapich{,2} should be added, too. As they aren't available on all architectures building packages against them would require the use of conditionals in spec files using them. Besides, I don't think rpm on RHEL 4 and 5 can't cope with subpackages that don't have the same build arch as the main package.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517849
Rafael Aquini aquini@linux.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |aquini@linux.com
--- Comment #2 from Rafael Aquini aquini@linux.com 2010-08-19 21:27:39 EDT --- It's been almost a year with no progress; This review should be closed soon if there is no response, shouldn't it?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517849
--- Comment #3 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi 2010-08-20 04:10:04 EDT --- No Rafael, it's the other way around - only if there has been no reply from the submitter.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517849
--- Comment #4 from Rafael Aquini aquini@linux.com 2010-08-20 07:59:42 EDT --- Jussi,
This is a janitorial work on Fedora Package Review queues, -- http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/ -- in order to identify and close stalled reviews.
I'm just following this policy: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews
Please, consider trying a swap review request to get this work reviewed http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process#Contributor
Regards
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517849
--- Comment #5 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi 2010-08-20 08:16:12 EDT --- Well, obviously I'm responsive. Furthermore, the reviewer part only applies to someone who has assigned her/himself to a review and then went missing, so that s/he can be taken off the review and the review bug be returned to an available state.
A stalled review is something where the submitter is not responding. Instead of closing down active bugs to shorten the queue, you can actually do something helpful by doing reviews yourself...
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517849
--- Comment #6 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-08-20 08:36:58 EDT --- Rafael, you can review this bug if you want.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517849
Rafael Aquini aquini@linux.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |aquini@linux.com Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #7 from Rafael Aquini aquini@linux.com 2010-08-20 08:41:46 EDT --- Ok,
so I'm assigning this review to myself, and soon I'll be posting a formal review to your package.
Regards
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517849
--- Comment #8 from Rafael Aquini aquini@linux.com 2010-08-21 10:47:53 EDT --- Jussi,
Please consider the following review:
Good: * Spec file naming follows package naming * Spec is legible and American English * No locale files * No shared libraries * No bundled libraries * Not relocatable * Default permissions are set * Macros used consistently * Package is code * No large documentation * No header files * No static libraries * Not a GUI application * Does not own files or directories from other packages * All filenames are utf8
NEEDSWORK [1] rpmlint complaints: mpiwrappers.src: W: no-url-tag mpiwrappers.src:83: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot} mpiwrappers.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean mpiwrappers.src:30: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 30, tab: line 9) mpiwrappers.x86_64: W: no-url-tag mpiwrappers.x86_64: E: no-binary mpiwrappers.x86_64: W: no-documentation mpiwrappers-lam.x86_64: E: devel-dependency lam-devel mpiwrappers-lam.x86_64: W: no-url-tag mpiwrappers-lam.x86_64: W: no-documentation mpiwrappers-lam.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/modulefiles/lam-x86_64 mpiwrappers-lam.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/rpm/macros.lam-x86_64 mpiwrappers-openmpi.x86_64: E: devel-dependency openmpi-devel mpiwrappers-openmpi.x86_64: W: no-url-tag mpiwrappers-openmpi.x86_64: W: no-documentation mpiwrappers-openmpi.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/rpm/macros.openmpi-x86_64 mpiwrappers-openmpi.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/modulefiles/openmpi-x86_64 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 14 warnings.
[2] Package name must follow Naming Guidelines, which states the name should match the upstream tarball / project name;
[3] Source within SRPM must match the upstream source;
Best regards
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517849
--- Comment #9 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi 2010-08-21 11:19:40 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8)
NEEDSWORK [1] rpmlint complaints: mpiwrappers.src: W: no-url-tag
Because this is a Fedora-specific wrapper package heavily relying on Fedora specifics.
mpiwrappers.src:83: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot} mpiwrappers.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean
Hmm, these are the same bug. Fixed. I wonder what was my reason. Fixed in 1-2.
mpiwrappers.src:30: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 30, tab: line 9)
Fixed in 1-2.
mpiwrappers.x86_64: E: no-binary
Still, this is an architecture specific package due to file ownership (%{_libdir}). I would add architecture dependent requires, but they're not provided in EPEL 4 and 5 since RPM is too old.
mpiwrappers.x86_64: W: no-documentation
None exists.
mpiwrappers-lam.x86_64: E: devel-dependency lam-devel
The package is a wrapper, so this is kind of obligatory to have.
mpiwrappers-lam.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/modulefiles/lam-x86_64 mpiwrappers-lam.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/rpm/macros.lam-x86_64
These are not config files.
[2] Package name must follow Naming Guidelines, which states the name should match the upstream tarball / project name;
There is no upstream project, since this is a Fedora specific package. See for instance kde-filesystem.
[3] Source within SRPM must match the upstream source;
Not applicable.
The rest were duplicates of these.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517849
Rafael Aquini aquini@linux.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #10 from Rafael Aquini aquini@linux.com 2010-08-24 19:51:24 EDT --- Jussi,
The "we are upstream" exception was removed a while ago, what makes this package fall into a grey area, opened to interpretation. https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Packaging%3ASourceURL&diff=1...
As I was not willing to have my mistakes messing with your work, I did some homework in order to have a better understanding of this particular case. Also, I had a talk to my sponsor who have helped me to reach the following understanding: [1] this is a trivial but atypical package -- what makes difficult its review; [2] its nature is only useful inside Fedora -- demanding a hosted project, just to fit the guidelines, it would be an unnecessary burden;
So, not only do I ended up agreeing with most of your considerations in Comment 9 but I'm approving this package.
Please, just remember to fix the following warnings, before import this package:
mpiwrappers.src:83: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot} mpiwrappers.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean mpiwrappers.src:30: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 30, tab:
line 9)
Best regards,
APPROVED
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517849
Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #11 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi 2010-08-25 12:00:41 EDT --- Thanks a lot for the review!
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: mpiwrappers Short Description: Environment module wrappers for MPI packages in RHEL Owners: jussilehtola Branches: EL-4 EL-5 InitialCC:
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517849
--- Comment #12 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com 2010-08-25 13:30:24 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517849
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517849
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-10-09 11:35:21 EDT --- mpiwrappers-1-3.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mpiwrappers-1-3.el5
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517849
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-10-09 11:35:29 EDT --- mpiwrappers-1-3.el4 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 4. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mpiwrappers-1-3.el4
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517849
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-10-10 14:01:33 EDT --- mpiwrappers-1-3.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update mpiwrappers'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mpiwrappers-1-3.el5
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517849
Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution| |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed| |2011-01-24 16:07:56
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org