Note: This is a beta release of Red Hat Bugzilla 5.0. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Also email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback here.
Bug 248363 - Review Request: mpfr - A C library for multiple-precision floating-point computations
Summary: Review Request: mpfr - A C library for multiple-precision floating-point com...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Jochen Schmitt
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
: 248354 (view as bug list)
Depends On: 225809
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2007-07-16 13:55 UTC by Ivana Varekova
Modified: 2014-01-06 13:16 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2007-08-06 14:27:37 UTC
jochen: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)
fixed srpm (deleted)
2007-07-20 07:56 UTC, Ivana Varekova
no flags Details
fixed srpm (again) (deleted)
2007-07-20 08:53 UTC, Ivana Varekova
no flags Details
proposed version of gmp package (deleted)
2007-07-23 12:28 UTC, Ivana Varekova
no flags Details

Description Ivana Varekova 2007-07-16 13:55:23 UTC
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/varekova/mpfr.spec
SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/varekova/mpfr-2.2.1-1.src.rpm
Description: 
The MPFR library is a C library for multiple-precision floating-point
computations with "correct rounding". The MPFR is efficient and
also has a well-defined semantics. It copies the good ideas from the
ANSI/IEEE-754 standard for double-precision floating-point arithmetic
(53-bit mantissa). MPFR is based on the GMP multiple-precision library.

Comment 1 Jochen Schmitt 2007-07-16 16:19:28 UTC
Good:
+ Package meets naming guildlines.
+ SPEC file name matches with package base name.
+ License tag says GPL
+ Project home page says LGPL as package license
+ Package contains verbatim copy of the license text
+ SPEC is written in English
+ SPEC file is legible
+ Tar ball matches with upstream
  (md5sum: 40bf06f8081461d8db7d6f4ad5b9f6bd)
+ Package has correct build root
+ BuildRequires are not redundant
+ Local build works fine.
+ package has %defattr an proper file permissions
+ %doc section is small
+ %doc section doesn't affect run time
+ Package contains no duplicates in the %file list
+ Changelog entries are ok.
+ Rpmlint is quite on source package.
+ Rpmlint is quite on binary packages
+ Mock build works fine for Devel (x86_64, i386, ppp64, ppc)

Bad:
- Package needs a Conflict tag, because the current gmp package contains the
mpfr package
- Unnecessary condition on deleting build root in %clean section
- Devel package contains static library




Comment 2 Ivana Varekova 2007-07-20 07:56:59 UTC
Created attachment 159633 [details]
fixed srpm

Thanks for your review the attached srpm fixes bugs you mentioned.

Comment 3 Ivana Varekova 2007-07-20 08:05:14 UTC
*** Bug 248354 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 4 Jakub Jelinek 2007-07-20 08:24:28 UTC
The mpfr library is released under LGPL2.1, how can saying it is GPL in the
License tag be a "Good" thing?  Of course you can relicense LGPL2.1 code as GPL,
but why would you do that?  License: LGPL would be much better (unless with the
advent of GPL3, LGPL3, LGPL2.5 we start being more explicit and write
GPL2, GPL2+, GPL3, GPL3+, LGPL2, LGPL2+, LGPL2.1, LGPL2.1+, LGPL2.5, LGPL3,
LGPL3+ etc. in License tags.

Also, upstream mpfr releases stable fixes on top of the last release
as a cummulative patch, see http://www.mpfr.org/mpfr-current/patches
It would be good to apply this in the spec file.

Comment 5 Ivana Varekova 2007-07-20 08:53:41 UTC
Created attachment 159634 [details]
fixed srpm (again)

Thanks Jakub, problems you mention are fixed in this version.

Comment 6 Laurent Rineau 2007-07-21 11:07:10 UTC
As far as I understand, that package cannot be push in Fedora, unless bug 
#225809 is closed, and libmpfr.a (and mpfr headers) removed from gmp-devel.

There is not a log of traffic in bug #225809. I do not even know if somebody 
is actually maintaining gmp (the version in Fedora is obsolete).

Ivana, what is your plan? Waiting for GMP maintainers to fix their package?


Comment 7 Jochen Schmitt 2007-07-22 17:56:40 UTC
(In reply to comment #6)
> As far as I understand, that package cannot be push in Fedora, unless bug 
> #225809 is closed, and libmpfr.a (and mpfr headers) removed from gmp-devel.

Yes, you right.

> There is not a log of traffic in bug #225809. I do not even know if somebody 
> is actually maintaining gmp (the version in Fedora is obsolete).
> Ivana, what is your plan? Waiting for GMP maintainers to fix their package?

We have to poke the gmp maintainer to do the split, because without the split 
we can't release a separate mpfr library.




Comment 8 Jochen Schmitt 2007-07-22 17:57:00 UTC
(In reply to comment #6)
> As far as I understand, that package cannot be push in Fedora, unless bug 
> #225809 is closed, and libmpfr.a (and mpfr headers) removed from gmp-devel.

Yes, you right.

> There is not a log of traffic in bug #225809. I do not even know if somebody 
> is actually maintaining gmp (the version in Fedora is obsolete).
> Ivana, what is your plan? Waiting for GMP maintainers to fix their package?

We have to poke the gmp maintainer to do the split, because without the split 
we can't release a separate mpfr library.




Comment 9 Jochen Schmitt 2007-07-22 19:41:10 UTC
I have create a suggestion for the gmp package on gmp-4.2.1.

So I thing, you should add a 'Conflict: gmp < 4.2.1' statement into your package.

Comment 10 Ivana Varekova 2007-07-23 08:37:44 UTC
Hello,
I'm gmp maintainer too so I'd like to update gmp in devel branch too, but I
don't want to remove mpfr files from gmp for long time without existence of the
separate mpfr package. So I plan to do both these changes (update gmp and remove
mpfr files from gmp and add mpfr package) when this review will be approved. 
I will update the conflict flag when I will build the new gmp version. 
Thanks for your comments.


Comment 11 Laurent Rineau 2007-07-23 08:51:44 UTC
Nice to hear that, Ivana. Do you have a gmp package updated, so that we can 
test it with the mpfr RPM of this bug?


Comment 12 Ivana Varekova 2007-07-23 12:28:10 UTC
Created attachment 159779 [details]
proposed version of gmp package

Oops good idea - so this is the proposed version of gmp package.

Comment 13 Ivana Varekova 2007-07-26 07:52:04 UTC
Is there any other problem? Could somebody approved this package review please?
Thanks.

Comment 14 Jochen Schmitt 2007-07-26 13:47:15 UTC
I'm waiting to see a package, where are complaints are fixed.

If I see this package, I will be able to approve your package.

Comment 15 Ivana Varekova 2007-07-26 14:03:05 UTC
The srpm from comment #5 should have all fixes. Is there any problem with this
package? (perhaps I overlook some comment?)

Comment 16 Jochen Schmitt 2007-07-26 14:39:28 UTC
Soory for my mistake. I have got a look on it and it's looks fine.


*** YOU ARE APPROVED ***

Comment 17 Ivana Varekova 2007-07-26 14:47:00 UTC
Package Name: mpfr 
Short Description: A C library for multiple-precision floating-point computations
Owners: varekova@redhat.com
Branches:


Comment 18 Ivana Varekova 2007-08-06 14:27:37 UTC
mpfr-2.2.1-1 package is just built. If there is any problem please create a
separate bug for this component.

Comment 19 Björn 'besser82' Esser 2014-01-06 13:09:39 UTC
Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: mpfr
New Branches: el5
Owners: besser82

Comment 20 Gwyn Ciesla 2014-01-06 13:16:40 UTC
Any comments from the Fedora maintainers?


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.