Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: libnewmat - Newmat C++ matrix library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479978
Summary: Review Request: libnewmat - Newmat C++ matrix library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: pascal22p@parois.net QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: http://svn.debroglie.net/specs/trunk/libnewmat.spec SRPM URL: http://fedora.debroglie.net/fedora-test/SRPMS/10/libnewmat-10D-1.fc10.debrog...
Description: This C++ library is intended for scientists and engineers who need to manipulate a variety of types of matrices using standard matrix operations. Emphasis is on the kind of operations needed in statistical calculations such as least squares, linear equation solve and eigenvalues.
rpmlint gives the following warnings: - libnewmat-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation (the documentation is in the libnewmat package)
- libnewmat.spec: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 41) (the tabulation is within a echo string)
- libnewmat.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libnewmat.so.10.4 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5
The package has been successfully built in mock.
It's my first package and I am seeking for a sponsor.
Cheers, Pascal
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=479978
manuel wolfshant wolfy@nobugconsulting.ro changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |177841
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=479978
--- Comment #1 from Pascal pascal22p@parois.net 2009-01-23 06:26:25 EDT --- Sorry guys, I broke my webserver, files are no longer available at the moment.
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=479978
--- Comment #2 from Pascal pascal22p@parois.net 2009-01-23 12:35:25 EDT --- Fixed, file are available again.
This library is going to be used by the next package I am going to submit. I am waiting for a new release upstream to submit it (http://vincefn.net/Fox/).
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=479978
--- Comment #3 from Michael Schwendt bugs.michael@gmx.net 2009-01-27 09:04:13 EDT ---
-shared -Wl,-soname,libnewmat.so.10.4
ln -s libnewmat.so.10.4 libnewmat.so.10
Are you sure you didn't want the soname to be libnewmat.so.10?
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=479978
--- Comment #4 from Pascal pascal22p@parois.net 2009-01-27 09:35:05 EDT --- You are right, it's a mistake.
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=479978
manuel wolfshant wolfy@nobugconsulting.ro changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |482757
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=479978
manuel wolfshant wolfy@nobugconsulting.ro changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alias| |libnewmat
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=479978
--- Comment #5 from Pascal pascal22p@parois.net 2009-02-06 16:09:26 EDT --- I corrected the soname name
New srpm: http://fedora.debroglie.net/SRPMS/10/libnewmat-10D-2.fc10.debroglie.src.rpm New spec: http://svn.debroglie.net/specs/trunk/libnewmat.spec
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=479978
Denis Arnaud denis.arnaud_fedora@m4x.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review?
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=479978
--- Comment #6 from Denis Arnaud denis.arnaud_fedora@m4x.org 2009-06-13 11:39:01 EDT --- Note that I am not a sponsor. However, I have quickly reviewed your package (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines) and fixed the warnings of rpmlint. The corresponding new specification file and source RPM are to be found here: ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Spec URL: http://denisarnaud.fedorapeople.org/newmat/11/1/newmat.spec SRPM URL: http://denisarnaud.fedorapeople.org/newmat/11/1/newmat-11-1.fc10.src.rpm -------------------------------------------------------------------------
and it builds nicely on all architectures: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1409984
So, following are a few points, in no particular order, that I have fixed in my version of the specification file (and with the patch): 0. I have renamed the package from 'libnewmat' into 'newmat', as it matches upstream naming (http://www.robertnz.net/ftp/newmat11.tar.gz). See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#General_Naming for further details.
1. License. Please have a look at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines and http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#SoftwareLicenses . For instance, "Public Use" does not exist. In my version of the spec file, I have used "Public Domain", which is acceptable for Fedora. However, it would be better to contact upstream (robert at statsresearch.co.nz), in order to clarify the license issue and potentially explicitly add a license file, if so intended.
2. Use of the exit() function in the upstream code (myexcept.cpp). 'rpmlint -i' states: "newmat.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libnewmat.so.11.1 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 This library package calls exit() or _exit(), probably in a non-fork() context. Doing so from a library is strongly discouraged - when a library function calls exit(), it prevents the calling program from handling the error, reporting it to the user, closing files properly, and cleaning up any state that the program has. It is preferred for the library to return an actual error code and let the calling program decide how to handle the situation." I have thus written a patch (http://denisarnaud.fedorapeople.org/newmat/11/1/newmat-11-fix-exit-issue.pat...) fixing that issue. That patch should be submitted/proposed upstream (as I have just coded a work-around, which upstream may not find appropriate).
3. Dynamic library. Usually, the library is set to be executable when installed: install -p -D -m 0755 lib/lib%{name}.so %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/lib%{name}.so.%{version} where %{version} is the full version (e.g., '11.1')
------------------
If you agree with the above, and you contact upstream for the corresponding issues (license, exit() function), and if upstream is fine with the license ("Public Domain"), I shall approve that 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=479978
Denis Arnaud denis.arnaud_fedora@m4x.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: libnewmat - |Review Request: newmat - |Newmat C++ matrix library |Newmat C++ matrix library
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=479978
Denis Arnaud denis.arnaud_fedora@m4x.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: newmat - |Review Request: newmat - |Newmat C++ matrix library |C++ matrix library
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=479978
Denis Arnaud denis.arnaud_fedora@m4x.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |182235(FE-Legal)
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=479978
--- Comment #7 from Denis Arnaud denis.arnaud_fedora@m4x.org 2009-06-13 11:51:03 EDT --- As the FE-LEGAL dependency has been added, here is the corresponding discussion: No license file is provided by upstream, and no mention of any license appears in the upstream site (http://www.robertnz.net) and files (readme.txt and source code), except the following statement in readme.txt: "This library is freeware."
I would suggest to contact upstream to add an explicit license file (and to choose an explicit license, such as GPLv2+ or LGPLv2+). But "Public Domain" may just be fine?
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=479978
--- Comment #8 from Pascal pascal22p@parois.net 2009-06-13 14:56:07 EDT --- Thanks for the review. I'll contact upstream.
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=479978
--- Comment #9 from Pascal pascal22p@parois.net 2009-06-26 14:27:07 EDT --- Upstream answer: "The conditions of use are at the beginning of the main documentation file.
You can make that change, if you like. Put a note in the code that you have made this change as I want to look a little more closely as to what should be done in my version before I make any change."
Effectively, in nm11.htm: 1.1 Conditions of use I place no restrictions on the use of newmat except that I take no liability for any problems that may arise from its use, distribution or other dealings with it. You can use it in your commercial projects (as well as your non-commercial projects). You can make and distribute modified or merged versions. You can include parts of it in your own software. If you distribute modified or merged versions, please make it clear which parts are mine and which parts are modified. [...]
Is it not enough ?
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=479978
--- Comment #10 from Denis Arnaud denis.arnaud_fedora@m4x.org 2009-06-26 16:04:54 EDT --- I am not a legal expert, but as stated here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#SoftwareLicenses , "all software in Fedora MUST be under licenses in the Fedora licensing list. This list is based on the licenses approved by the Free Software Foundation , OSI and consultation with Red Hat Legal".
Debian packagers raised the same type of concerns about licensing of that package: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=335185 , but they became eventually fine with the re-worded version of the license.
It is a custom license, and the author does not appear to be ready to switch to a standard, OSI-approved, license. So, Fedora legal people may not accept that license. I prefer to let them have a look at it and decide.
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=479978
Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tcallawa@redhat.com Blocks|182235(FE-Legal) |
--- Comment #11 from Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com 2009-07-06 09:28:42 EDT --- This is an extremely permissive license, and it is clearly Free and GPL Compatible. I've added it to the Licenses list, please use:
License: Newmat
Lifting FE-Legal.
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=479978
Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jussi.lehtola@iki.fi
--- Comment #12 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi 2009-07-08 13:03:32 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6)
- Use of the exit() function in the upstream code (myexcept.cpp). 'rpmlint
-i' states: "newmat.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libnewmat.so.11.1 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 This library package calls exit() or _exit(), probably in a non-fork() context. Doing so from a library is strongly discouraged - when a library function calls exit(), it prevents the calling program from handling the error, reporting it to the user, closing files properly, and cleaning up any state that the program has. It is preferred for the library to return an actual error code and let the calling program decide how to handle the situation." I have thus written a patch (http://denisarnaud.fedorapeople.org/newmat/11/1/newmat-11-fix-exit-issue.pat...) fixing that issue. That patch should be submitted/proposed upstream (as I have just coded a work-around, which upstream may not find appropriate).
For good or worse, this is quite common behaviour in scientific packages. The rpmlint warning can be safely omitted, one can ask upstream to fix it but any Fedora specific hacks are out of the question since they break compatibility.
**
- It seems you have added the functionality to build the shared library yourself. In this case no soname should be set (just produce an unversioned .so file). You should ask upstream to provide the option to build soname'd shared libraries.
Denis: please don't post spec files of your own as this makes the review rather confusing. I almost mistook your spec file for that of Pascal. If you want to suggest changes, do so with an attached patch.
Pascal: please fill your whole name in bugzilla.
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=479978
Pascal Parois pascal22p@parois.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pascal22p@parois.net
--- Comment #13 from Pascal Parois pascal22p@parois.net 2009-07-11 17:30:54 EDT ---
- It seems you have added the functionality to build the shared library
yourself. In this case no soname should be set (just produce an unversioned .so file). You should ask upstream to provide the option to build soname'd shared libraries.
ok, I'll fix the spec file. And add the license as well.
Pascal: please fill your whole name in bugzilla.
Done
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=479978
--- Comment #14 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi 2009-08-05 05:06:08 EDT --- ping, what's the status?
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=479978
--- Comment #15 from Pascal Parois pascal22p@parois.net 2009-08-05 06:29:46 EDT --- I didn't do anything yet.
I am struggling submitting my phd thesis by the end of the month. I'll catch up when I'll be a doctor :)
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=479978
--- Comment #16 from Pascal Parois pascal22p@parois.net 2009-08-30 05:09:54 EDT --- Finally, I made the corrections.
the license is fixed version soname is removed version bumped to 11
http://pascal.parois.net/fedoraproject/ http://svn.debroglie.net/specs/trunk/newmat.spec
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=479978
Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rc040203@freenet.de
--- Comment #17 from Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de 2009-08-30 06:52:58 EDT --- (In reply to comment #16)
version soname is removed
Very bad idea. Could it be you haven't understood the purpose of SONAMEs?
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=479978
--- Comment #18 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi 2009-08-30 14:08:05 EDT --- (In reply to comment #17)
(In reply to comment #16)
version soname is removed
Very bad idea. Could it be you haven't understood the purpose of SONAMEs?
AFAIK we don't add soname's, since that really should be done by upstream. Or is there some policy I am blissfully unaware of?
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=479978
--- Comment #19 from Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de 2009-08-30 22:38:38 EDT --- AFAIS, (In reply to comment #18)
AFAIK we don't add soname's, since that really should be done by upstream.
It's correct that it's hardly possible to invent SONAMEs if upstream doesn't, but shipping a shared library without any SONAME doesn't work either.
Or differently: Letting both the base package and the *-devel package contain *.so, doesn't work.
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=479978
--- Comment #20 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi 2009-08-31 03:48:23 EDT --- (In reply to comment #19)
AFAIS, (In reply to comment #18)
AFAIK we don't add soname's, since that really should be done by upstream.
It's correct that it's hardly possible to invent SONAMEs if upstream doesn't, but shipping a shared library without any SONAME doesn't work either.
Or differently: Letting both the base package and the *-devel package contain *.so, doesn't work.
The guidelines are quite clear on that one:
MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages
Unversioned shared libraries are placed in 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=479978
--- Comment #21 from Michael Schwendt mschwendt@gmail.com 2009-08-31 04:22:42 EDT --- Well, deciding on where to place the library file is not an issue.
Publishing a SONAME-less library, which other components will link with, is the issue. It leads to either silent ABI breakage during library upgrades (worse-case) or explicit dependencies on package name+version, which increase the package maintenance requirements.
One ought not invent SONAMEs, which bear a risk of conflicting with upstream's future SONAMEs, but one can choose versioned SONAMEs, which would change whenever the library version changes. e.g. libfoo-1.0.so.0, libfoo-1.1.so.0 and so on (alternatively, one maps the API/ABI to a build id, which may change more slowly than the library version). That way library upgrades require rebuilds of dependencies or else there would be broken RPM dependencies. The remaining problem is that these SONAMEs also differ from upstream and any other source of builds made for upstream's library. Still, such a work-around is better than shipping a library without a versioned SONAME.
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=479978
--- Comment #22 from Pascal Parois pascal22p@parois.net 2009-08-31 05:00:17 EDT --- I sent an email upstream about the soname. Before looking for a workaround which seems not to be trivial.
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=479978
--- Comment #23 from Pascal Parois pascal22p@parois.net 2009-09-01 14:40:25 EDT --- The answer: "Sorry, I don't know a lot about Linux so you are going to have to give me more details.
All the make files I provide are produced automatically with my genmake program. It may be possible to modify this to produce the changes you want, but only if you explain exactly what is required."
I don't know genmake, it doesn't seem to handle versioned soname ?
If anyone has any idea to deal with the situation, you are welcome :)
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=479978
--- Comment #24 from Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de 2009-09-02 11:23:43 EDT --- (In reply to comment #23)
[upstream is clueless]
OK, upstream's answer doesn't actually surprize me ;-)
If anyone has any idea to deal with the situation, you are welcome :)
I would introduce an SONAME of libnewmat.so.0.
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=479978
--- Comment #25 from Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de 2009-09-02 11:25:39 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=359548) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=359548) Patch against newmat.spec
This patch is one approach to implement what I wrote in previous comment.
SONAME libnewmat.so.0, file name libnewmat.so.0.0.0
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=479978
--- Comment #26 from Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de 2009-09-14 10:36:36 EDT --- Any progress on this package? I am going to close this review request, shouldn't we hear from the OP within 1 week.
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=479978
--- Comment #27 from Pascal Parois pascal22p@parois.net 2009-09-15 13:22:17 EDT --- Yes, I applied the patch.
http://fedora.debroglie.net/SRPMS/11/newmat-11-2.fc11.debroglie.src.rpm http://svn.debroglie.net/specs/trunk/newmat.spec
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=479978
--- Comment #28 from Pascal Parois pascal22p@parois.net 2009-10-27 09:31:38 EDT --- ping ?
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=479978
--- Comment #29 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi 2010-05-08 04:40:45 EDT --- At least spec file is unavailable.
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=479978
--- Comment #30 from Pascal Parois pascal22p@parois.net 2010-05-08 07:03:03 EDT --- Here is the last rpm/srpm http://fedora.debroglie.net/RPMS/12/i386/newmat-11-2.fc12.i686.rpm http://fedora.debroglie.net/SRPMS/12/newmat-11-2.fc12.src.rpm
And the spec file: http://svn.debroglie.net/debroglie/specs/trunk/newmat.spec
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=479978
--- Comment #31 from Pascal Parois pascal22p@parois.net 2010-11-12 14:24:57 EST --- http://fedora.debroglie.net/RPMS/14/i386/newmat-11-2.fc14.i686.rpm http://fedora.debroglie.net/SRPMS/14/newmat-11-2.fc14.src.rpm
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=479978
Michael Schwendt mschwendt@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |
--- Comment #32 from Michael Schwendt mschwendt@gmail.com 2011-03-01 13:03:30 EST --- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Get_S...
| Review and approval for the first package for new packagers must be done | by registered sponsors. Subsequent reviews can be done by any package | maintainer. Informal reviews can always be done by anyone interested.
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=479978
--- Comment #33 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2011-03-12 21:40:02 EST --- I see this very old ticket has recently re-entered the review queue.
First, are you still interested in submitting this to Fedora? Have you done any review work as detailed in the link Michael sent?
Could you address the fillowing rpmlint issues? newmat-devel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/include/newmat/newmatrm.h newmat-devel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/include/newmat/newmat.h newmat-devel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/include/newmat/newmatio.h newmat-devel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/include/newmat/tmt.h newmat-devel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/include/newmat/newmatrc.h newmat-devel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/include/newmat/precisio.h newmat-devel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/include/newmat/myexcept.h newmat-devel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/include/newmat/controlw.h newmat-devel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/include/newmat/solution.h newmat-devel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/include/newmat/newmatap.h newmat-devel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/include/newmat/newmatnl.h newmat-devel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/include/newmat/include.h These should not be executable.
newmat.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libnewmat.so.0.0.0 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 This is generally a bad thing that should be reported as a bug to upstream, but isn't something you have to fix on your own.
newmat-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation This is not a problem.
Otherwise this package seems fine, and if you are still interested and willing to do some other review work I think this could probably go in without too much difficulty.
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=479978
Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status Whiteboard| |StalledSubmitter
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=479978
--- Comment #34 from Pascal Parois pascal22p@parois.net 2011-04-10 04:22:18 EDT --- I'll address these when I'll get some time and no I haven't review anything. There is not much chemistry in Fedora and I am not interesting in the rest.
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=479978
--- Comment #35 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi 2011-12-16 04:57:11 EST --- Ping Pascal?
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=479978
--- Comment #36 from Pascal Parois pascal22p@parois.net 2011-12-16 06:56:57 EST --- Permissions on *.h have been fixed:
http://depot.debroglie.net/fedora/RPMS/15/repoview/newmat.html https://svn.parois.net/debroglie/specs/trunk/newmat.spec
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org