Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: papi - Performance Application Programming Interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=525346
Summary: Review Request: papi - Performance Application Programming Interface Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: wcohen@redhat.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Target Release: ---
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/wcohen/papi/papi.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/wcohen/papi/papi-3.7.0-1.src.rpm Description:
PAPI provides a programmer interface to monitoring perform of running programs.
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=525346
--- Comment #1 from Bill Nottingham notting@redhat.com 2009-09-23 19:48:58 EDT --- PERF_HEAD=`ls /usr/src/kernels/*/include/linux/perf_counter.h|sort |tail -n 1` || exit 1 ln -s $PERF_HEAD perf_counter.h
Ew. How often do you expect the ABI to change here?
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=525346
--- Comment #2 from Bill Nottingham notting@redhat.com 2009-09-23 19:49:24 EDT --- Why wouldn't that be in kernel-headers, actually?
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=525346
--- Comment #3 from William Cohen wcohen@redhat.com 2009-09-24 09:12:46 EDT --- perf_counter.h is not expected to change. However, there could be multiple perf_counter.h files. The PERF_HEAD was written so that it would just pick one for the symbolic link.
The kernel-headers would be more appropriate. However, kernel-headers doesn't currently include perf_counter.h. Need to get that added.
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=525346
--- Comment #4 from William Cohen wcohen@redhat.com 2009-09-24 16:54:44 EDT --- Revised the spec file:
To separate out the static library files. To run tests when building the package.
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/wcohen/papi/papi.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/wcohen/papi/papi-3.7.0-1.src.rpm Description:
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=525346
--- Comment #5 from William Cohen wcohen@redhat.com 2009-09-24 17:26:30 EDT --- Correction:
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/wcohen/papi/papi.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/wcohen/papi/papi-3.7.0-3.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=525346
--- Comment #6 from William Cohen wcohen@redhat.com 2009-09-29 11:52:20 EDT --- Updated srpm to be buildable on non-x86 machines;
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/wcohen/papi/papi.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/wcohen/papi/papi-3.7.0-6.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=525346
--- Comment #7 from William Cohen wcohen@redhat.com 2009-10-01 15:48:12 EDT --- Updated srpm for a couple SPEC file cleanups (proper URL for download location and requires for -devel RPM);
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/wcohen/papi/papi.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/wcohen/papi/papi-3.7.0-7.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=525346
--- Comment #8 from William Cohen wcohen@redhat.com 2009-10-08 11:33:44 EDT --- A scratch build for papi-3.7.0-7.src.rpm is at:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1722841
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=525346
Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |rjones@redhat.com AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |rjones@redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #9 from Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com 2009-10-09 04:36:33 EDT --- Taking for 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=525346
--- Comment #10 from Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com 2009-10-09 05:19:16 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=364225) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=364225) papi.spec.patch
Patch to apply to papi.spec which fixes a number of RPM and rpmlint issues.
* Fri Oct 09 2009 Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com - 3.7.0-8 - Fix URL and Source0. - Grammatical corrections to the description sections. - Remove RPATHs from shared libraries. - RPM shouldn't own directories. - Add soname patch so soname is libpapi.so.3. - Add exit patch so library doesn't call exit directly.
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=525346
--- Comment #11 from Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com 2009-10-09 05:20:38 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=364227) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=364227) papi-3.7.0-soname.patch
This patch to the source makes PAPI use a library soname like 'libpapi.so.3' instead of 'libpapi.so'. This is to fix an rpmlint error.
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=525346
--- Comment #12 from Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com 2009-10-09 05:21:50 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=364228) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=364228) papi-3.7.0-exit.patch
This patch to the source makes PAPI call abort(3) instead of exit(3). Calling exit in shared libraries provokes an rpmlint warning.
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=525346
--- Comment #13 from Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com 2009-10-09 05:22:21 EDT --- I'm now continuing the review based on my patched version ...
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=525346
Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #364225|0 |1 is obsolete| |
--- Comment #14 from Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com 2009-10-09 05:32:11 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=364229) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=364229) papi.spec.patch
Further change to papi.spec, this replaces the previous papi.spec.patch.
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=525346
Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #15 from Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com 2009-10-09 05:32:56 EDT --- + rpmlint output
papi-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation
I think this warning can be ignored, because the base package contains plenty of documentation.
+ package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines + specfile name matches the package base name + package should satisfy packaging guidelines + license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora BSD + license matches the actual package license + %doc includes license file + spec file written in American English + spec file is legible + upstream sources match sources in the srpm + package successfully builds on at least one architecture x86_64 n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed + BuildRequires list all build dependencies http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1722841 n/a %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/* + binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun + does not use Prefix: /usr + package owns all directories it creates + no duplicate files in %files + %defattr line + %clean contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT + consistent use of macros + package must contain code or permissible content n/a large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage + files marked %doc should not affect package + header files should be in -devel + static libraries should be in -static n/a packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig' + libfoo.so must go in -devel + -devel must require the fully versioned base + packages should not contain libtool .la files n/a packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file + packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages + %install must start with rm -rf %{buildroot} etc. + filenames must be valid UTF-8 + use %global instead of %define
Optional:
+ if there is no license file, packager should query upstream n/a translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if available + reviewer should build the package in mock - the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures - review should test the package functions as described + scriptlets should be sane n/a pkgconfig files should go in -devel + shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or /usr/sbin
-------------------------------------------------------
THIS PACKAGE IS APPROVED by rjones
(Note: This applies only the -9 version containing my additional changes)
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=525346
--- Comment #16 from Bill Nottingham notting@redhat.com 2009-10-09 11:49:11 EDT --- If I may ask, what's the justification of having static libraries?
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=525346
--- Comment #17 from Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com 2009-10-09 12:17:45 EDT --- I'll defer to the packager on this question. I did some Googling and it seems like people use both the dynamic and static versions of this library, and I can't see any down side to using the dynamic version, but I'm no expert on this.
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=525346
--- Comment #18 from William Cohen wcohen@redhat.com 2009-10-09 12:19:09 EDT --- PAPI builds the static library. This might have been used because of the lack of share library versioning:
http://www.ncsa.illinois.edu/UserInfo/Resources/Software/Tools/PAPI/
Or because some PAPI targets do not support shared libraries (IBM blue gene):
http://ipm-hpc.sourceforge.net/installation.html
However, on Fedora it would probably be reasonable to remove the static libraries as mentioned at:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Librari...
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=525346
--- Comment #19 from Bill Nottingham notting@redhat.com 2009-10-09 12:24:57 EDT --- Yeah, I'd prefer to not ship static libs if we can get away with 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=525346
--- Comment #20 from William Cohen wcohen@redhat.com 2009-10-09 16:01:36 EDT --- Updated srpm to get rid of the static libraries;
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/wcohen/papi/papi.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/wcohen/papi/papi-3.7.0-10.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=525346
William Cohen wcohen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #21 from William Cohen wcohen@redhat.com 2009-10-13 14:50:44 EDT --- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: papi Short Description: Performance Application Programming Interface Owners: wcohen Branches: F-12 EL-6 InitialCC: lwang@redhat.com
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=525346
--- Comment #22 from Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com 2009-10-13 15:01:05 EDT --- William, I don't think EL-6 exists yet...
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=525346
Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |
--- Comment #23 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com 2009-10-15 13:29:49 EDT --- It doesn't. ;)
Also, we can't add arbitrary email addresses to initialcc. It has to be a fedora account system account name. Can you revist and reset the fedora-cvs flag when you are ready?
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=525346
William Cohen wcohen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs+
--- Comment #24 from William Cohen wcohen@redhat.com 2009-10-15 14:12:54 EDT --- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: papi Short Description: Performance Application Programming Interface Owners: wcohen Branches: F-12 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=525346
William Cohen wcohen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs?
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=525346
Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
--- Comment #25 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com 2009-10-26 16:12:00 EDT --- cvs 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=525346
Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE
--- Comment #26 from Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com 2010-06-08 09:08:40 EDT --- This package is in Fedora now, and so I think this bug should be closed.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/papi
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org