https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1701565
Bug ID: 1701565 Summary: Review Request: vmemcache - buffer-based LRU cache Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: kilobyte@angband.pl QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://angband.pl/tmp/fedora/vmemcache.spec SRPM URL: https://angband.pl/tmp/fedora/vmemcache-0.8-1.src.rpm Description: buffer-based LRU cache Fedora Account System Username: kilobyte Upstream: Intel
Hi! I'd like to ask for review and sponsoring of this package; it's a key:value cache optimized for persistent memory (in a volatile use...), developed at Intel.
While I happen to be one of most active package reviewers in Debian, this is my very first Fedora (and RPM at all) submission, thus you can expect some inadequacies.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1701565
Adam Borowski kilobyte@angband.pl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1701565
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- - Use a better name for your archive
Source0: https://github.com/pmem/vmemcache/archive/%%7Bversion%7D/%%7Bname%7D-%%7Bver...
- ExcludeArch: i686 armv7hl
Use ExclusiveArch instead:
ExclusiveArch: x86_64 ppc64 ppc64le s390x aarch64
ExcludeArch are for build failures https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_architecture_bui...
- Do not glob major soname version to avoid unintentional soname bump:
%{_libdir}/libvmemcache.so.0*
- You're missing the dist tag in Release:
Release: 1%{?dist}
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present.
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
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]: 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 %license. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "Unknown or generated", "Common Development and Distribution License". 12 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/vmemcache/review-vmemcache/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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 uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [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]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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). [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [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]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in vmemcache , vmemcache-devel [?]: 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. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: vmemcache-0.8-1.x86_64.rpm vmemcache-devel-0.8-1.x86_64.rpm vmemcache-debuginfo-0.8-1.x86_64.rpm vmemcache-debugsource-0.8-1.x86_64.rpm vmemcache-0.8-1.src.rpm vmemcache.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tmpfs -> temps vmemcache.x86_64: W: no-documentation vmemcache.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tmpfs -> temps 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1701565
--- Comment #2 from Adam Borowski kilobyte@angband.pl --- Done -- the ?dist part changed the SRPM to https://angband.pl/tmp/fedora/vmemcache-0.8-1.fc30.src.rpm
I've also added: %license LICENSE and %doc ChangeLog
Thanks for the review so far!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1701565
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- LGTM, package approved.
You still need to find a sponsor. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1701565
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Flags|fedora-review+ |
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1701565
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1701565
--- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/vmemcache
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1701565
Adam Borowski kilobyte@angband.pl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2020-02-18 15:40:00
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com