Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: PXZ - Parallel LZMA compressor compatible with XZ
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=598902
Summary: Review Request: PXZ - Parallel LZMA compressor compatible with XZ Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: jnovy@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://jnovy.fedorapeople.org/pxz/pxz.spec SRPM URL: http://jnovy.fedorapeople.org/pxz/pxz-4.999.9-0.1.beta.20100602git.fc13.src.... Description: Parallel XZ is a compression utility that takes advantage of running XZ compression simultaneously on different parts of an input file on multiple cores and processors. This significantly speeds up compression time.
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=598902
Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |jussi.lehtola@iki.fi AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |jussi.lehtola@iki.fi Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi 2010-06-03 08:20:27 EDT --- Assigning.
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=598902
--- Comment #2 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi 2010-06-03 08:28:58 EDT --- rpmlint output: pxz.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 4.999.9-0.1.20100526.beta ['4.999.9-0.1.beta.20100602git.fc13', '4.999.9-0.1.beta.20100602git'] pxz.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pxz pxz-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.
The error is caused by optflags not being used:
gcc -Wall -Wshadow -Wcast-align -Winline -Wextra -Wmissing-noreturn -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE -DPXZ_BUILD_DATE="`date +%Y%m%d`" -DPXZ_VERSION="4.999.9beta" -O2 -fopenmp -llzma pxz.c -o pxz
Change CFLAGS="%{optflags}" to export CFLAGS="%{optflags}" and it works.
However, I recommend patching out CFLAGS+=-O2 -fopenmp from the makefile, and using export CFLAGS="%{optflags} -fopenmp" instead.
The man page warning can be omitted. Although, I see you are also upstream, so I'd recommend you create a man page.
MUST: The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a duplicate. OK MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used consistently. OK MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. OK
MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. NEEDSWORK - License is GPLv2+, not LGPLv2+.
MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. OK MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. N/A
MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. NEEDSWORK - See above.
MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. N/A MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package that owns the directory. OK MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK
MUST: Debuginfo package is complete. NEEDSWORK - See above.
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK MUST: Clean section exists. OK MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. N/A MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect runtime of application. OK MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. N/A MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files ending in .so must go in a -devel package. N/A MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. N/A MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK MUST: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. OK SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK
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=598902
--- Comment #3 from Jindrich Novy jnovy@redhat.com 2010-06-03 10:52:44 EDT --- Thanks! All of the mentioned fixes should be addressed now.
http://jnovy.fedorapeople.org/pxz/pxz.spec http://jnovy.fedorapeople.org/pxz/pxz-4.999.9-0.1.beta.20100603git.fc13.src....
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=598902
Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi 2010-06-03 14:49:18 EDT --- This is a package review, not a merge review ;)
$ rpmlint pxz-* pxz.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 4.999.9-0.1.20100603.beta ['4.999.9-0.1.beta.20100603git.fc13', '4.999.9-0.1.beta.20100603git'] 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
so the change log EVR entries should be of the style 4.999.9-0.1.beta.20100603git not 4.999.9-0.1.20100603.beta
- I abhor wildcards where they are not needed. Please change %{_mandir}/man1/*.1* to %{_mandir}/man1/pxz.1*
- Please change URL to http://jnovy.fedorapeople.org/pxz as that's a *lot* easier to paste from the spec file.
Otherwise, my earlier comments seem to have been taken into account. One final comment: now the compilation does not use the "-D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE" flags. Are these not necessary on Fedora?
The final changes are cosmetic, so you can consider this package
APPROVED
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=598902
Jindrich Novy jnovy@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #5 from Jindrich Novy jnovy@redhat.com 2010-06-06 01:54:01 EDT --- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: pxz Short Description: Parallel LZMA compressor using XZ Owners: jnovy Branches: F-12 F-13 EL-6 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=598902
--- Comment #6 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com 2010-06-07 17:08:23 EDT --- CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py).
Can you fix the summary to say pxz, and not PXZ? It causes a warning from our tools.
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=598902
Jindrich Novy jnovy@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: PXZ - |Review Request: pxz - |Parallel LZMA compressor |Parallel LZMA compressor |compatible with XZ |compatible with XZ
--- Comment #7 from Jindrich Novy jnovy@redhat.com 2010-06-08 01:30:01 EDT --- Done, thanks.
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=598902
Jindrich Novy jnovy@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
--- Comment #8 from Jindrich Novy jnovy@redhat.com 2010-06-08 04:32:34 EDT --- Jussi, Kevin, thanks for cooperation :)
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org