[CoinBinary] Prototype fedora packages

[Paulo César Pereira de Andrade]

2012/11/11 Ted Ralphs <ted at lehigh.edu>:
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 7:57 AM, Paulo César Pereira de Andrade
> <paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andrade at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>   Hi,
>>
>>   I have a prototype all in one "coin-or" package and prototype split
>> all projects in different packages naming them "coinor-*" at
>> http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coinor
>>
>>   I would like some feedback before making a formal request
>> for inclusion in the fedora distribution.
>>
>>   Main issues I have are:
>>
>> o Sub project tarballs include all of their dependencies. The reason
>>   probably is to make it self  contained and reduce bug reports
>>   due to non matching versions. But I may need to repackage
>>   tarballs to have it accepted in Fedora due to data/examples
>>   missing license information
>
>
> A while back, we changed the configure scripts so that you could easily
> check out and build the projects individually for this exact reason. If you
> take just the subfolder Xxx within project Xxx, you can build in that
> subfolder and link the resulting library against other already installed
> projects. The only caveat is that you have to build them in the right order
> (that's what the configure script in the root directory takes care of for
> you). A simple script could essentially do the same job. All the relevant
> license, documentation, examples, etc. for each project are located in the
> subfolder. Would it be sufficient to just take this part of the posted
> tarballs? If not, it should be relatively easy to create tarballs without

  configure and pkgconfig should take care of instructing someone
bootstraping, or building a new component when something is
missing or outdated, so, yes, it would be better to package only
the subfolder.

> dependencies and post those also. You are correct for the reasoning for the
> current tarballs including all dependencies.
>
>>
>> o Data and examples information is very desirable, to know
>>   what could be packaged, but I am afraid they do not have
>>   a license (e.g. http://www.coin-or.org/download/source/Data/
>>   contents of Data-*.tgz)
>
>
> Yes, that's always been a problem. We discussed it and made an effort to
> clean this up some time ago, trying to identify the source for each file and
> get the owner to provide a license, but this was a losing game and didn't go
> far. Unfortunately, most of the standard test instances that are out there
> are unlicensed. I will bring this up again with the board and see what we
> can do.

  Actually, I am only asking about that because of the empty README
and LICENSE files, otherwise I most likely would not notice it... And
standard "fedora-review" would not find it either, as it would not match
the default pattern for automated "licensecheck":

   --check, -c            Specify a pattern indicating which files should
                             be checked
                             (Default:
'\.(c(c|pp|xx)?|h(h|pp|xx)?|f(77|90)?|p(l|m)|xs|sh|php|py(|x)|rb|java|vala|el|sc(i|e)|cs|pas|inc|dtd|xsl|mod|m|tex|mli?)$')

  I have been holding on submitting the packages for review mostly
due to this, that is, if there is dubious content, it should be removed
from the tarball, but repackaging a tarball has its own issues...

>> o I did choose "coinor-*" to match Debian naming, but maybe I
>>   should use "coin-or-*", suggestions? :-)
>
>
> I guess I prefer "coin-or" because it then matches the URL.

  Ok. I will use the "coin-or" pattern/prefix. I will work on making
review requests for inclusion in fedora, and remake the tarballs,
at first to remove the Data subdirectories, as well as duplicated
projects.

> Ted
> --
> Dr. Ted Ralphs
> Associate Professor, Lehigh University
> (610) 628-1280
> ted 'at' lehigh 'dot' edu
> coral.ie.lehigh.edu/~ted

Paulo