https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870189
Bug ID: 870189 QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org Severity: unspecified Version: rawhide Priority: unspecified CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: ibacm - InfiniBand Communication Manager Assistant Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Unspecified Reporter: jstanley@rmrf.net Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: Unspecified Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora
Spec URL: http://jstanley.fedorapeople.org//ibacm.spec SRPM URL: http://jstanley.fedorapeople.org//ibacm-1.0.7-1.fc19.src.rpm
Description: The ib_acm daemon helps reduce the load of managing path record lookups on large InfiniBand fabrics by providing a user space implementation of what is functionally similar to an ARP cache. The use of ib_acm, when properly configured, can reduce the SA packet load of a large IB cluster from O(n^2) to O(n). The ib_acm daemon is started and normally runs in the background, user applications need not know about this daemon as long as their app uses librdmacm to handle connection bring up/tear down. The librdmacm library knows how to talk directly to the ib_acm daemon to retrieve data.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870189
--- Comment #1 from Jon Stanley jstanley@rmrf.net --- This package built on koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4626564
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870189
Volker Fröhlich volker27@gmx.at changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |volker27@gmx.at
--- Comment #2 from Volker Fröhlich volker27@gmx.at --- The version constraint on libibverbs-devel is not necessary.
You can drop "-n %{name}-%{version}" from the setup macro and remove the %defattrs, as they only set what's the default anyway.
Please make the build verbose.
Systemd service files are usually not executable.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870189
--- Comment #3 from Jon Stanley jstanley@rmrf.net --- New spec: http://jstanley.fedorapeople.org/ibacm.spec New SRPM: http://jstanley.fedorapeople.org/ibacm-1.0.7-2.fc16.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870189
--- Comment #4 from Jon Stanley jstanley@rmrf.net --- Ping - anything else needed here?
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870189
Volker Fröhlich volker27@gmx.at changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |volker27@gmx.at
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870189
--- Comment #5 from Volker Fröhlich volker27@gmx.at --- Remove README, as it only contains building instructions.
I think you should install the configuration files ibacm_addr.cfg and ibacm_opts.cfg. Citing the manpage:
""" The ibacm service relies on two configuration files.
The ibacm_addr.cfg file contains name and address mappings [...] """
and
""" The ibacm_opts.cfg file provides a set of configurable options for the ibacm service, such as timeout, number of retries, logging level, [...] """
Package Review ==============
Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
PPC and ARM succeeds, if that makes sense
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in ibacm-devel
I think the isa macro is not absolutely necessary here, as this is not the usual devel subpackage that has a symlink in /usr/lib{,64}.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/makerpm/870189-ibacm/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
/usr/include/infiniband is owned by various packages
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [!]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
Adding a few empty lines between the scriptlets would make it look a bit better, but that's not a blocker, of course!
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 3 files. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
False positive typos and a bogus warning related to the unit file
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
acm.h's timestamp is lost
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Uses parallel make. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: ibacm-1.0.7-2.fc20.x86_64.rpm ibacm-devel-1.0.7-2.fc20.x86_64.rpm ibacm.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ib -> bi, ob, iv ibacm.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US acm -> cam, ac, am ibacm.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lookups -> lockups, hookups, look ups ibacm.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US librdmacm -> Librium ibacm.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib ibacm-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) ib -> bi, ob, iv ibacm-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) acm -> cam, ac, am ibacm-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ib -> bi, ob, iv ibacm-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US acm -> cam, ac, am ibacm-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US librdmacm -> Librium ibacm-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 11 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint ibacm-devel ibacm ibacm-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) ib -> bi, ob, iv ibacm-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) acm -> cam, ac, am ibacm-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ib -> bi, ob, iv ibacm-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US acm -> cam, ac, am ibacm-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US librdmacm -> Librium ibacm-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation ibacm.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ib -> bi, ob, iv ibacm.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US acm -> cam, ac, am ibacm.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lookups -> lockups, hookups, look ups ibacm.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US librdmacm -> Librium ibacm.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 11 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires -------- ibacm-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ibacm
ibacm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh libc.so.6()(64bit) libibumad.so.3()(64bit) libibumad.so.3(IBUMAD_1.0)(64bit) libibverbs.so.1()(64bit) libibverbs.so.1(IBVERBS_1.0)(64bit) libibverbs.so.1(IBVERBS_1.1)(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) systemd
Provides -------- ibacm-devel: ibacm-devel ibacm-devel(x86-64)
ibacm: ibacm ibacm(x86-64)
MD5-sum check ------------- http://www.openfabrics.org/downloads/rdmacm/ibacm-1.0.7.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 689fb6d483e7cd67d7c740227c3860cff62a1cd24c8e9de9904a82e7e3e841f6 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 689fb6d483e7cd67d7c740227c3860cff62a1cd24c8e9de9904a82e7e3e841f6
Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (660ce56) last change: 2013-01-29 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 870189
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870189
Volker Fröhlich volker27@gmx.at changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jstanley@rmrf.net Flags| |needinfo?(jstanley@rmrf.net | |)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870189
--- Comment #6 from Christopher Meng cickumqt@gmail.com --- Please have a look at bug 700285 if possible.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870189
--- Comment #7 from Volker Fröhlich volker27@gmx.at --- Christopher: I'm not allowed to access it.
Jon: Please proceed with this package!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870189
Honggang LI honli@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |honli@redhat.com
--- Comment #8 from Honggang LI honli@redhat.com --- Ping? Is this still a valid review request? It has been here about 4 years, and seems nobody really care about this bug. Is it acceptable to open a new review request bug for ibacm?
thanks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870189
--- Comment #9 from Honggang LI honli@redhat.com --- Can somebody please close this stale bug? We will open a new package review request for ibacm.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870189
Honggang LI honli@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |extras-qa@fedoraproject.org Flags| |needinfo?(extras-qa@fedorap | |roject.org)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870189
Honggang LI honli@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |INSUFFICIENT_DATA Flags|needinfo?(jstanley@rmrf.net | |) | |needinfo?(extras-qa@fedorap | |roject.org) | Last Closed| |2016-03-29 19:44:36
--- Comment #10 from Honggang LI honli@redhat.com --- As nobody cares about this bugs over 4 years, I'm closing it and submitting a new package review request for ibacm.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla