Request for review: umfpack

[Quentin Spencer]

Orion Poplawski wrote:

> Quentin Spencer wrote:
>
>> umfpack is a library for solving linear equations involving sparse 
>> matrices. It is used by the newest development versions of octave 
>> (the 2.9.x tree which is in preparation for an upcoming 3.0 release), 
>> which I plan to eventually include in the Extras development tree. An 
>> SRPM can be found at:
>>
>> http://webpages.charter.net/qspencer/octave/umfpack-4.4-1.src.rpm
>>
>> Please take a look at this. It builds pretty quickly.
>>
>
> # rpmlint umfpack umfpack-devel
> W: umfpack invalid-license Freely distributable
> W: umfpack-devel invalid-license Freely distributable
>
> Not sure if this is rpmlint issue or not, I'm not that up on my 
> licenses.  License text is included and looks good.


I'll take Ville's suggestion and put just "Distributable". I got "freely 
distributable" from the spec file for lapack, which has a similar license.

> Is the AMD library of any use broken out?  Are we going to conflict 
> with anything else using libamd?

I doubt it. It's also very specific to sparse matrices, and I think it 
would be unlikely to be used by anything other than octave or maybe 
eventually some other high-level language like Python. I borrowed 
heavily from the Debian package in writing the spec file. If anyone 
would have found a possible conflict by now, I figure Debian would have.

> Probably want to remove commented stuff in %prep:
>
> %prep
> %setup -q -n UMFPACKv%{version}
> %patch0 -p0
> #%setup -q -c %{name}-%{version}
> #mv UMFPACKv%{version} shared
> #cp -a shared static
>
>
> I would be explicit and own the include directory:
>
> %{_includedir}/umfpack/

I'll fix this. I'm not familiar with the details of how the %files 
section works. Do you mean putting this on a separate line from the line 
where the contents of the directory are included?

-Quentin