https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1563680
Bug ID: 1563680 Summary: Package Review: libocxl library for OpenCAPI accelerator Product: Fedora Version: 28 Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: normand@linux.vnet.ibm.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
spec: https://michelmno.fedorapeople.org/libocxl/libocxl.spec srpm: https://michelmno.fedorapeople.org/libocxl/SRPMS/libocxl-1.0-1.fc29.src.rpm
Summary: Allows to implement a user-space driver for an OpenCAPI accelerator
I built locally for rawhide and kept generated rpms in https://michelmno.fedorapeople.org/libocxl/RPMS/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1563680
Michel Normand normand@linux.vnet.ibm.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dan@danny.cz Flags| |needinfo?(dan@danny.cz)
--- Comment #1 from Michel Normand normand@linux.vnet.ibm.com --- Hello Dan, could you take this bug for review ?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1563680
Dan Horák dan@danny.cz changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |dan@danny.cz Flags|needinfo?(dan@danny.cz) |
--- Comment #2 from Dan Horák dan@danny.cz --- yup, taking
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1563680
Hanns-Joachim Uhl hannsj_uhl@de.ibm.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |bugproxy@us.ibm.com, | |hannsj_uhl@de.ibm.com External Bug ID| |IBM Linux Technology Center | |166425 OS|Unspecified |Linux
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1563680
Hanns-Joachim Uhl hannsj_uhl@de.ibm.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1523862
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1563680
--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- - Please add a comment for each patch explaining what they do
- Use the new %ldconfig_scriptlets macro instead of:
%post -p /sbin/ldconfig
%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Removing_ldconfig_scriptlets#Upgrade....
- Build error:
BUILDSTDERR: /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.PWgKId: line 41: cd: libocxl-1.0: No such file or directory
Fix it by passing the correct directory to %setup:
%setup -q -n %{name}-%{version}-RELEASE
- You could replace:
%setup -q -n %{name}-%{version}-RELEASE %patch1 -p1 %patch2 -p1 %patch3 -p1
with:
%autosetup -p1 -n %{name}-%{version}-RELEASE
- Patch error:
+ /usr/bin/cat /builddir/build/SOURCES/irq_trace_ppc64.patch + /usr/bin/patch -p1 -s --fuzz=0 --no-backup-if-mismatch Reversed (or previously applied) patch detected! Assume -R? [n] Apply anyway? [n] 1 out of 1 hunk ignored -- saving rejects to file src/irq.c.rej
Patch irq_trace_ppc64.patch is already applied in the 1.0 Release.
- Own /usr/share/libocxl by removing the * in %files:
%{_datarootdir}/libocxl
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/libocxl
Actually since it seems to be documentation, I believe it should be installed in %{_pkgdocdir} (i.e /usr/share/doc/libocxl ). Since you're already patching the Makefile, you could probably change the install directory of the docs.
- The docs should be split in a separate noarch -docs subpackage:
[!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1228800 bytes in /usr/share
- The Makefile doesn't keep timestamps while installing files. To fix this, replace the occurrences of "install" with $(INSTALL), i.e.:
$(INSTALL) -m 0755 obj/$(LIBNAME) $(libdir)/ cp -d obj/libocxl.so obj/$(LIBSONAME) $(libdir)/ $(INSTALL) -m 0644 src/include/libocxl.h $(includedir)/ $(INSTALL) -m 0644 -D docs/man/man3/* $(mandir)/man3 $(INSTALL) -m 0644 -D docs/html/*.* $(datadir)/libocxl $(INSTALL) -m 0644 -D docs/html/search/* $(datadir)/libocxl/search
The $(INSTALL) variable is set up by the %make_install macro, replacing it with install -p, which keeps timestamps.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [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. [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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 22 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/libocxl/review- libocxl/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/libocxl [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/libocxl [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files. [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]: 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]: 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]: Dist tag is present. [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]: 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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. [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1228800 bytes in /usr/share [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: libocxl-1.0-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm libocxl-devel-1.0-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm libocxl-debuginfo-1.0-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm libocxl-debugsource-1.0-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm libocxl-1.0-1.fc29.src.rpm libocxl-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib libocxl-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1563680
--- Comment #4 from Michel Normand normand@linux.vnet.ibm.com --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #3)
[CUT] ... Actually since it seems to be documentation, I believe it should be installed in %{_pkgdocdir} (i.e /usr/share/doc/libocxl ). Since you're already patching the Makefile, you could probably change the install directory of the docs.
- The docs should be split in a separate noarch -docs subpackage:
[!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1228800 bytes in /usr/share
Thank your for all comments; Question: how to define in spec the *-docs subpackage as noarch package ? while other packages are arch specific (with ExclusiveArch)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1563680
--- Comment #5 from Michel Normand normand@linux.vnet.ibm.com --- (In reply to Michel Normand from comment #4)
Thank your for all comments; Question: how to define in spec the *-docs subpackage as noarch package ? while other packages are arch specific (with ExclusiveArch)
answering myself: using BuildArch in related Package definition.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1563680
--- Comment #6 from Dan Horák dan@danny.cz --- Just add "BuildArch: noarch" into the "%package docs" section.
I agree with Robert-Andre's review, but you should be able to drop the "ldconfig" stuff completely as standard stuff is handled automagically.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1563680
--- Comment #7 from Michel Normand normand@linux.vnet.ibm.com --- spec and srpm updated from Robert-Andre's review spec: https://michelmno.fedorapeople.org/libocxl/libocxl.spec srpm: https://michelmno.fedorapeople.org/libocxl/SRPMS/libocxl-1.0.0-1.fc29.src.rp...
Dan, I already added the suggested %ldconfig_scriptlets, should I remove it ?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1563680
--- Comment #8 from Dan Horák dan@danny.cz --- If we won't plan to include libocxl to F-27 (and I think it's not necessary, F-28+ should be good), then you can remove the ldconfig scriptlets.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1563680
--- Comment #9 from Michel Normand normand@linux.vnet.ibm.com --- done
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1563680
--- Comment #10 from Dan Horák dan@danny.cz --- - the Release tag value should be 0.1 as the 1.0.0 version is in beta (see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Versioning#Prerelease_versions) - I would put the man pages to -devel, but kept the html in the separate -docs, this is the usual split, but aren't the HTML docs duplicate of the man pages content-wise (just different format)? - you can use %{name}-%{version} in the Source0 URL - I would split the BuildRequires into 2 lines, for more complex packages it's then easier to track changes in BR
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1563680
--- Comment #11 from Michel Normand normand@linux.vnet.ibm.com --- I updated the spec file for your previous comments except the man pages and html ones both generated by doxygen, so kept them both in the noarch package.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1563680
--- Comment #12 from Michel Normand normand@linux.vnet.ibm.com --- (In reply to Michel Normand from comment #11)
I updated the spec file for your previous comments except the man pages and html ones both generated by doxygen, so kept them both in the noarch package.
Dan is it OK or should I really split man and html in differerent rpms ?
spec and srpm updated from new beta2 upstream release (no more patches in spec) spec: https://michelmno.fedorapeople.org/libocxl/libocxl.spec srpm: https://michelmno.fedorapeople.org/libocxl/SRPMS/libocxl-1.0.0-0.1.fc29.src....
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1563680
--- Comment #13 from Dan Horák dan@danny.cz --- If the content of the man pages and html file is the same, then I would merge the man pages into the devel subpackage (where usually basic API documentation goes, I mean headers + man pages should be installed together) and removed the docs subpackage. On the other hand the html version viewed in a browser is nice, so it would make sense to keep it ...
You can use Source0: https://github.com/OpenCAPI/%%7Bname%7D/archive/%%7Bversion%7D-beta2/%%7Bnam... to have better named source archive file.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1563680
--- Comment #14 from Michel Normand normand@linux.vnet.ibm.com --- OK I moved man in *devel rpm and kept html in *docs rpm
I did not change the Source0 to ease compare with previous URL line and allow direct access from either vi or emacs editors when in spec. URL: https://github.com/OpenCAPI/libocxl Source0: https://github.com/OpenCAPI/libocxl/archive/%%7Bversion%7D-beta2.tar.gz
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1563680
Dan Horák dan@danny.cz changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #15 from Dan Horák dan@danny.cz --- OK, the package looks good, APPROVED.
one nitpick - the Summary for docs should be "HTML doc files for ..." (s/doxygen/HTML/) or even only "Documentation files for %{name}". Please fix before building.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1563680
--- Comment #16 from Michel Normand normand@linux.vnet.ibm.com --- scratch build on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=26291946
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1563680
Michel Normand normand@linux.vnet.ibm.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Package Review: libocxl |Package Review: libocxl - |library for OpenCAPI |library for OpenCAPI |accelerator |accelerator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1563680
--- Comment #17 from Gwyn Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libocxl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1563680
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- libocxl-1.0.0-0.1.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-80a761dd88
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1563680
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1563680
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- libocxl-1.0.0-0.1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-80a761dd88
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1563680
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2018-04-12 16:24:06
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- libocxl-1.0.0-0.1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1563680
Hanns-Joachim Uhl hannsj_uhl@de.ibm.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1524656
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org