https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856005
Bug ID: 1856005 Summary: Review Request: DMTCP - (Distributed MultiThreaded Checkpointing) Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: pgrosu@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/~pgrosu/fedora/dmtcp.spec SRPM URL: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/~pgrosu/fedora/dmtcp-2.6.1~rc1-0.1.fc31.src.rpm
Review (Dec. 2019): http://www.ccs.neu.edu/~pgrosu/fedora/review.txt Review Response (Dec. 2019): http://www.ccs.neu.edu/~pgrosu/fedora/review-response-new-v1.txt
Fedora Account System Username: pgrosu or pgrosu@gmail.com
FE-NEEDSPONSOR (Orion Poplawski)
Description:
We have finished packaging DMTCP, and we would appreciate a review.
DMTCP (Distributed MultiThreaded Checkpointing) is a tool to transparently checkpointing the state of an arbitrary group of applications including multi-threaded and distributed computations. It operates directly on the user binary executable, with no Linux kernel modules or other kernel mods.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856005
Paul Grosu pgrosu@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pgrosu@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856005
Paul Grosu pgrosu@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |orion@nwra.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856005
Paul Grosu pgrosu@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://github.com/dmtcp/dm | |tcp Hardware|All |x86_64
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856005
Petr Pisar ppisar@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ppisar@redhat.com 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=1856005
Artur Iwicki fedora@svgames.pl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora@svgames.pl
--- Comment #1 from Artur Iwicki fedora@svgames.pl ---
Group: Applications/System
Not used in Fedora. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_tags_and_section...
make %{?_smp_mflags}
Use %make_build instead.
make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}
Use %make_install instead.
%{_mandir}/man1/*gz
Do not assume that man pages will be gzipped. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_manpages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856005
Paul Grosu pgrosu@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED
--- Comment #2 from Paul Grosu pgrosu@gmail.com ---
Spec URL: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/~pgrosu/fedora/dmtcp.spec SRPM URL: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/~pgrosu/fedora/dmtcp-2.6.1~rc1-0.1.fc30.src.rpm
We have now updated the dmtcp.spec file according to your corrections. The new link contains those fixes. Thank you. If you would like to do a deeper review, we promise to respond rapidly.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856005
Petr Pisar ppisar@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |NEW
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856005
Dave Love dave.love@manchester.ac.uk changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dave.love@manchester.ac.uk
--- Comment #3 from Dave Love dave.love@manchester.ac.uk --- This either needs to run python3 explicitly or buildrequire %_bindir/python (if that's still allowable). Currently %check fails completely and it's not immediately obvious, due to ||:. Can you adjust the source not to try to run tests which are expected to fail, or somehow count the failures, and remove the ||:? (I remember seeing a number of failures when I've run the tests on el7 which I never investigated, which might be more-or-less specific to el7, and I can believe running in mock could cause some.) If that isn't possible, at least add a comment about failures in the %check stanza.
The .so objects in the package-specific directory are fine for internal, use by the way, regardless of what the review tool says.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856005
Paul Grosu pgrosu@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED
--- Comment #4 from Paul Grosu pgrosu@gmail.com ---
Spec URL: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/~pgrosu/fedora/dmtcp.spec SRPM URL: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/~pgrosu/fedora/dmtcp-2.6.1~rc1-0.1.fc30.src.rpm
We've fixed the two issues: 1. We separated "python3, gcc-c++" into two separate BuildRequires. 2. We fixed '%check' to remove '|| :' at the end. There is a small danger on a slow test machine that a test will time out and fail. It's not likely on modern machines, and we added a comment to explain this issue. 3. In %check, the command to check was changed to: AUTOTEST="--retry-once --slow" make check This seems to fix the problem with epel7. We can now use koji to build and check binary packages for epel7.
Finally, note also that the dmtcp.spec lists "%ix86 x86_64 aarch64" under "ExclusiveArch". The Bugzilla Hardware field allowed only all architectures or just one. We chose x86_64, but we believe the package works on all three architectures.
Thanks for any feedback.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856005
--- Comment #5 from Dave Love dave.love@manchester.ac.uk --- The current version still doesn't run the tests because it doesn't find "python" -- see build.log. I'd suggest modifying the script(s) to call python3 explicitly. (I haven't looked at the source.)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856005
--- Comment #6 from Orion Poplawski orion@nwra.com --- Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/doc/dmtcp See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files
- Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/orion/1856005-dmtcp/diff.txt See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ Hmm - might be a transient network issue.
- as noted above, %check is incomplete: make[1]: Leaving directory '/builddir/build/BUILD/dmtcp-2.6.1~rc1/test' /bin/sh: python: command not found *** No python found in your path. *** Please add python to path or build Python 2.x for x >= 3.
you need to explicitly call /usr/bin/python3.
- please fix the license header in dmtcp.h
Otherwise looking good.
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [-]: Package contains no static executables. - exception granted [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [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]: 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "Expat License [generated file]", "Public domain", "GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later", "LaTeX Project Public License", "[generated file]", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "Apache License 2.0", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]". 495 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/orion/1856005-dmtcp/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. - exception granted [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 71680 bytes in 4 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 requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [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: [x]: 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]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: 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]: 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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [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.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: dmtcp-2.6.1~rc1-0.1.fc33.x86_64.rpm dmtcp-devel-2.6.1~rc1-0.1.fc33.x86_64.rpm dmtcp-debuginfo-2.6.1~rc1-0.1.fc33.x86_64.rpm dmtcp-debugsource-2.6.1~rc1-0.1.fc33.x86_64.rpm dmtcp-2.6.1~rc1-0.1.fc33.src.rpm dmtcp.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US checkpointing -> check pointing, check-pointing, checkpoint dmtcp.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/bin/mtcp_restart dmtcp.x86_64: E: shared-lib-without-dependency-information /usr/lib64/dmtcp/libdmtcp_alloc.so dmtcp.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-setgroups-before-setuid /usr/lib64/dmtcp/libdmtcp_pid.so dmtcp-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation dmtcp.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US checkpointing -> check pointing, check-pointing, checkpoint dmtcp.src:52: W: macro-in-comment %{__python3} dmtcp.src:52: W: macro-in-comment %{_vpath_srcdir} dmtcp.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/dmtcp/2.6.1/dmtcp-2.6.1~rc1.tar.gz <urlopen error [Errno 101] Network is unreachable> 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 6 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: dmtcp-debuginfo-2.6.1~rc1-0.1.fc33.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- dmtcp.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US checkpointing -> check pointing, check-pointing, checkpoint dmtcp.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://dmtcp.sourceforge.net <urlopen error [Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution> dmtcp.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/bin/mtcp_restart dmtcp.x86_64: E: shared-lib-without-dependency-information /usr/lib64/dmtcp/libdmtcp_alloc.so dmtcp.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-setgroups-before-setuid /usr/lib64/dmtcp/libdmtcp_pid.so dmtcp-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://dmtcp.sourceforge.net <urlopen error [Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution> dmtcp-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://dmtcp.sourceforge.net <urlopen error [Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution> dmtcp-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation dmtcp-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://dmtcp.sourceforge.net <urlopen error [Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution> 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 6 warnings.
Unversioned so-files -------------------- dmtcp: /usr/lib64/dmtcp/libdmtcp.so dmtcp: /usr/lib64/dmtcp/libdmtcp_alloc.so dmtcp: /usr/lib64/dmtcp/libdmtcp_batch-queue.so dmtcp: /usr/lib64/dmtcp/libdmtcp_dl.so dmtcp: /usr/lib64/dmtcp/libdmtcp_ipc.so dmtcp: /usr/lib64/dmtcp/libdmtcp_modify-env.so dmtcp: /usr/lib64/dmtcp/libdmtcp_pathvirt.so dmtcp: /usr/lib64/dmtcp/libdmtcp_pid.so dmtcp: /usr/lib64/dmtcp/libdmtcp_svipc.so dmtcp: /usr/lib64/dmtcp/libdmtcp_timer.so dmtcp: /usr/lib64/dmtcp/libdmtcp_unique-ckpt.so
Source checksums ---------------- http://downloads.sourceforge.net/dmtcp/2.6.1/dmtcp-2.6.1~rc1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 06d4af27ebfa25b0beb0de7d0c1eb308b95a23af4867d5686d938b05e76dbce0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4fa92d711609c945c3f6364f3824cd9b315f3c9ef3ad877888e8d45597504661 diff -r also reports differences
Requires -------- dmtcp (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/bash ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
dmtcp-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): dmtcp(x86-64)
dmtcp-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
dmtcp-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- dmtcp: dmtcp dmtcp(x86-64) libdmtcp.so()(64bit) libdmtcp_alloc.so()(64bit) libdmtcp_batch-queue.so()(64bit) libdmtcp_dl.so()(64bit) libdmtcp_ipc.so()(64bit) libdmtcp_modify-env.so()(64bit) libdmtcp_pathvirt.so()(64bit) libdmtcp_pid.so()(64bit) libdmtcp_svipc.so()(64bit) libdmtcp_timer.so()(64bit) libdmtcp_unique-ckpt.so()(64bit)
dmtcp-devel: dmtcp-devel dmtcp-devel(x86-64)
dmtcp-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) dmtcp-debuginfo dmtcp-debuginfo(x86-64)
dmtcp-debugsource: dmtcp-debugsource dmtcp-debugsource(x86-64)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856005
--- Comment #7 from Paul Grosu pgrosu@gmail.com --- Spec URL: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/~pgrosu/fedora/dmtcp.spec SRPM URL: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/~pgrosu/fedora/dmtcp-2.6.1~rc1-0.1.fc30.src.rpm
Hi Orion,
New the SRPM has 3 new changes from what you saw before:
1) We now include the Apache License 2.0 in dmtcp.h. Thank you for catching this. 2) The Koji testing seems to have problems with our %ix86 architecture during 'make check'. We believe it works, but since this architecture is seldom used for our DMTCP, we removed that architecture from the dmtcp.spec 3) We changed the %check field in dmtcp.spec. Instead of explicitly invoking /usr/bin/python3, it seems simpler to invoke 'make check' with some added options from DMTCP.
Thank you, - Gene and Paul
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856005
--- Comment #8 from Dave Love dave.love@manchester.ac.uk --- As I looked at it, and it may save Orion saying the same if I'm not putting words in his mouth:
I saw the tests are still not being run -- see the log. I think you need to do something, either fixing it up for python3 or dropping %check, which is confusing if it never works. For some packages fixing up tests might not be so important, but this seems to me like the sort of intricate application for which they would be. (Fedora can give you an early warning about impending breakage due to changes in linux, libc, etc., though I don't know how sensitive dmtcp is to those.)
Also, rpmlint still complains about the %dir in %files, though I think it's harmless. You only need %dir if you're installing into a directory which isn't owned by a package that's guaranteed to be installed; pkgconfig or cmake files are common examples.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856005
Petr Pisar ppisar@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ASSIGNED CC| |ppisar@redhat.com Summary|Review Request: DMTCP - |Review Request: dmtcp - |(Distributed MultiThreaded |Checkpoint/Restart |Checkpointing) |functionality for Linux | |processes Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856005
--- Comment #9 from Orion Poplawski orion@nwra.com --- My main concern at this point is the proper setting of the License field. I'm sure I quite understand having the header file under a different license. It may be worth pinging legal about it.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856005
Paul Grosu pgrosu@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
--- Comment #10 from Paul Grosu pgrosu@gmail.com --- Hi David and Orion,
David: The last time we were able to get on to Koji (last week), we were able to see the %check successfully executed for our latest dmtcp.spec. But it appears that Koji has been down for about a week. In either case, we would be able to comment out %check in dmtcp.spec. Is that allowed?
Orion: Thank you for looking into the license issues.
Thank you, - Gene and Paul
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856005
--- Comment #11 from Dave Love dave.love@manchester.ac.uk --- I can't remember what's been off when, but koji hasn't been off for long recently. Anyway, you can build locally even if you don't ru Fedora. I run mock in a vagrant VM hosted on a Debian system.
If you look at https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=49201579 you'll see all the tests have been skipped because there's no "python". I'd have thought you'd want to autoconf python for 2 and 3 these days, but if you don't want to do that or just edit the shebang, you can currently still just require %_bindir/python.
The changes in https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/loveshack/testing/fedora-... get the tests run, but one fails in mock for some reason that you might have a better idea about; it doesn't outside mock. It's allowed not to run tests -- they may not exist -- but I still think running them would be useful, given what I've seen break on the bleeding edge of rawhide.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856005
--- Comment #12 from Dave Love dave.love@manchester.ac.uk --- On EL7 the script test fails, even outside mock, and kills make check
bash ckpt:PASSED; rstr:PASSED -> ckpt:PASSED; rstr:PASSED script ckpt:PASSED; rstr:PASSED -> ckpt:PASSED; rstr:bash: line 1: 29524 Alarm clock python3 ./test/autotest.py --retry-once --slow make: *** [check] Error 142
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856005
--- Comment #13 from Paul Grosu pgrosu@gmail.com --- Spec URL: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/~pgrosu/fedora/dmtcp.spec SRPM URL: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/~pgrosu/fedora/dmtcp-2.6.1~rc1-0.1.fc30.src.rpm
Hi David and Orion,
Okay, we tracked down the bug in '%check'. It was a silly mistake. You should now be seeing a full '%check', and we tested on epel7 now.
Running '%check' causes the build of the binary rpm to be rather slow. We can leave it as is, or we can comment out the '%check'.
For now, we've updated: * dmtcp.spec * dmtcp-2.6.1~rc1-0.1.el7.src.rpm (using epel7 now for our source rpm)
Thanks again for your help. - Gene and Paul
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856005
--- Comment #14 from Dave Love dave.love@manchester.ac.uk --- I don't know about Orion, wouldn't worry about a build time of half an hour with tests. I'm more worried about not being able to get the tests to pass if I make sure they're not skipped (which they still are in the build). One or more fail in mock on el7 and f33, as well as with a straight build from the tarball on centos7 and debian 10. I don't have time to try to debug them. Can you say what's going wrong and how significant it is?
Koji examples: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=49885693 https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=49893986
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856005
--- Comment #15 from Paul Grosu pgrosu@gmail.com --- Hi Dave,
Sorry for the delay in responding. Where it is failing it tends to be for rarely used cases, or for cases where the tests take long or may time out. Primarily we are interested in having DMTCP 2.6 accepted as a package, and then soon after updating to DMTCP 3.0. Would it be better if we skipped the tests for now? Our larger goal is to move our package to DMTCP 3.0, but we would like to see a 2.6 package first as a confidence-building measure.
Best regards, - Gene and Paul
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856005
--- Comment #16 from Paul Grosu pgrosu@gmail.com --- Hi Orion, When we last heard, you were checking with the lawyers if it was okay for us to have two slightly different open-source copyrights. For almost all of DMTCP, it's LGPLv3. But for the single file include/dmtcp.h , it's Apache (or any other completely open license). The file include/dmtcp.h needs to be added to the end user's own program. We don't want LGPLv3 there, since it would make claims about the copyright of the larger execution unit in which it is embedded.
Thanks, - Paul and Gene
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856005
--- Comment #17 from Paul Grosu pgrosu@gmail.com --- Hi Orion,
Hope you are doing well. Any updates on our submission? We just got the following email today regarding the old version (2.3), which this package (2.6.1) should address positively:
---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Debian Bug Tracking System owner@bugs.debian.org Date: Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 8:39 PM Subject: Processed: found 868928 in 2.3.1-5, found 776640 in 2.3.1-5, found 789292 in 2.3.1-5, found 791940 in 2.3.1-5 To: Andreas Beckmann anbe@debian.org Cc: pgrosu@gmail.com
Processing commands for control@bugs.debian.org:
# 2.3.1-6 went missing from the changelog found 868928 2.3.1-5
Bug #868928 [src:dmtcp] dmtcp: FTBFS: pidwrappers.h:191:20: error: '__WAIT_STATUS' was not declared in this scope Marked as found in versions dmtcp/2.3.1-5.
found 776640 2.3.1-5
Bug #776640 [dmtcp] dmtcp: Please include plugins from the source package Marked as found in versions dmtcp/2.3.1-5.
found 789292 2.3.1-5
Bug #789292 [src:dmtcp] dmtcp: FTBFS with glibc-2.21 and gcc-5 Bug #808644 [src:dmtcp] dmtcp: FTBFS: error: conflicting types for ‘_real_sigvec’ Marked as found in versions dmtcp/2.3.1-5. Marked as found in versions dmtcp/2.3.1-5.
found 791940 2.3.1-5
Bug #791940 {Done: Paul Grosu pgrosu@gmail.com} [dmtcp] Please support ARM64 (done upstream; will be in 2.4.0) Marked as found in versions dmtcp/2.3.1-5.
thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856005
--- Comment #18 from Orion Poplawski orion@nwra.com --- Paul -
I apologize for the long radio silence - things have been pretty crazy for a while. I think I have some time to focus on this now though.
I think we're okay on the license, thanks for the explanation about the use of the header.
Current package is failing to build though:
/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1 -fstack-protector-strong -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-annobin-cc1 -m64 -mtune=generic -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -fstack-clash-protection -fcf-protection -c -o pathvirt.o `test -f 'pathvirt/pathvirt.cpp' || echo './'`pathvirt/pathvirt.cpp pathvirt/pathvirt.cpp: In function 'dmtcp::string resolve_symlink(const char*)': pathvirt/pathvirt.cpp:738:20: error: '_STAT_VER' was not declared in this scope 738 | if (_real_lxstat(_STAT_VER, path, &statBuf) == 0 | ^~~~~~~~~ make[1]: *** [Makefile:963: pathvirt.o] Error 1
Finally, you mention debian in your last comment - this is a submission for Fedora and so won't have any effect on debian :).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856005
--- Comment #19 from Paul Grosu pgrosu@gmail.com --- Hi Orion,
The failure of DMTCP to compile is apparently due to a change to /usr/include in rawhide. They used to define the macro _STAT_VER in /usr/include/bits/stat.h, and upstream glibc certainly defines it. But rawhide removed that macro. We'll soon provide a new version of DMTCP, in which we check if the macro is provided by stat.h, and if not, we'll define it ourselves. This seems to have caused problems with other Fedora packages that also use lxstat, etc. But the fix will be simple. We'll test it and package the updated DMTCP shortly.
Thank you, Paul and Gene
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856005
--- Comment #20 from Paul Grosu pgrosu@gmail.com --- Hi Orion,
Spec URL: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/~pgrosu/fedora/rawhide/dmtcp.spec SRPM URL: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/~pgrosu/fedora/rawhide/dmtcp-2.6.1~rc1-0.1.fc35.src.r...
We fixed the issues for rawhide. One test will work best if the machine (rawhide) is not too loaded. Above are the updated links.
Let us know what we need to do next.
Thank you, Paul and Gene
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856005
--- Comment #21 from Orion Poplawski orion@nwra.com --- Paul -
Looking much better, though I'm seeing a test failure:
openmp-2 ckpt:PASSED; rstr:FAILED (first process rec'd signal 11); retry: ***** Copied checkpoint images to /tmp/dmtcp-mockbuild@buildvm-x86-09.iad2.fedoraproject.org/dmtcp-autotest-896957130 FAILED openmp-2 root-pids: <map object at 0x7f9f1a135d30> msg: error: processes restarted and then died Trying once again ckpt:PASSED; rstr:FAILED (first process rec'd signal 11); retry: ***** Copied checkpoint images to /tmp/dmtcp-mockbuild@buildvm-x86-09.iad2.fedoraproject.org/dmtcp-autotest-896957130 FAILED nocheckpoint root-pids: <map object at 0x7f9f1a135d30> msg: error: processes restarted and then died
scratch build - https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=61880783
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856005
--- Comment #22 from Paul Grosu pgrosu@gmail.com --- Hi Orion,
Spec URL: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/~pgrosu/fedora/rawhide/dmtcp.spec SRPM URL: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/~pgrosu/fedora/rawhide/dmtcp-2.6.1~rc1-0.1.fc35.src.r...
We're providing a new DMTCP package in which we comment out the offending tests from the DMTCP test suite. The DMTCP test suite has a timeout for when a test takes too long. But the test machines at Fedora are sometimes loaded more heavily. This was causing the tests to exceed the timeout. We have a new SRPM here, in which we have commented out the tests for opemp-2 and nocheckpoint. Under a reasonable load, the Fedora test machines should complete the remaining tests within the timeout.
Best, - Paul and Gene
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856005
--- Comment #23 from Orion Poplawski orion@nwra.com --- Getting very close - just 3 things to fix.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/doc/dmtcp See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files
Replace:
%dir %{_pkgdocdir} %{_pkgdocdir}
with:
%{_pkgdocdir}/
This will include %{_pkgdocdir} and everything in it and ensure that it is a directory.
- Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/orion/1856005-dmtcp/diff.txt See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/
Looks like the tarball in the srpm is different from what you get when you download the source url. This should be fixed.
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [-]: Package contains no static executables. - exception granted [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [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]: 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "Expat License [generated file]", "Apache License 2.0", "GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later", "LaTeX Project Public License", "[generated file]", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]". 509 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/orion/1856005-dmtcp/licensecheck.txt
Please change License to and add the following comment:
# dmtcp.h is ASL-2.0 License: LGPLv3+ and ASL-2.0
[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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 71680 bytes in 4 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 requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [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: [x]: 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]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: %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]: 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]: 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: dmtcp-2.6.1~rc1-0.1.fc34.x86_64.rpm dmtcp-devel-2.6.1~rc1-0.1.fc34.x86_64.rpm dmtcp-debuginfo-2.6.1~rc1-0.1.fc34.x86_64.rpm dmtcp-debugsource-2.6.1~rc1-0.1.fc34.x86_64.rpm dmtcp-2.6.1~rc1-0.1.fc34.src.rpm dmtcp.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US checkpointing -> check pointing, check-pointing, checkpoint dmtcp.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/bin/mtcp_restart dmtcp.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-setgroups-before-setuid /usr/lib64/dmtcp/libdmtcp_pid.so dmtcp-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation dmtcp.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US checkpointing -> check pointing, check-pointing, checkpoint dmtcp.src: W: file-size-mismatch dmtcp-2.6.1~rc1.tar.gz = 1538162, http://downloads.sourceforge.net/dmtcp/2.6.1/dmtcp-2.6.1~rc1.tar.gz = 1382085 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 4 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: dmtcp-debuginfo-2.6.1~rc1-0.1.fc34.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- dmtcp-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation dmtcp.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US checkpointing -> check pointing, check-pointing, checkpoint dmtcp.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/bin/mtcp_restart dmtcp.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-setgroups-before-setuid /usr/lib64/dmtcp/libdmtcp_pid.so 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings.
Unversioned so-files -------------------- dmtcp: /usr/lib64/dmtcp/libdmtcp.so dmtcp: /usr/lib64/dmtcp/libdmtcp_alloc.so dmtcp: /usr/lib64/dmtcp/libdmtcp_batch-queue.so dmtcp: /usr/lib64/dmtcp/libdmtcp_dl.so dmtcp: /usr/lib64/dmtcp/libdmtcp_ipc.so dmtcp: /usr/lib64/dmtcp/libdmtcp_modify-env.so dmtcp: /usr/lib64/dmtcp/libdmtcp_pathvirt.so dmtcp: /usr/lib64/dmtcp/libdmtcp_pid.so dmtcp: /usr/lib64/dmtcp/libdmtcp_svipc.so dmtcp: /usr/lib64/dmtcp/libdmtcp_timer.so dmtcp: /usr/lib64/dmtcp/libdmtcp_unique-ckpt.so
Source checksums ---------------- http://downloads.sourceforge.net/dmtcp/2.6.1/dmtcp-2.6.1~rc1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 671130c39f426b17d6453e170ee9243d8664f6c28fbb1376aad56e09cc6e514a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4fa92d711609c945c3f6364f3824cd9b315f3c9ef3ad877888e8d45597504661 diff -r also reports differences
Requires -------- dmtcp (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/bash ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
dmtcp-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): dmtcp(x86-64)
dmtcp-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
dmtcp-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- dmtcp: dmtcp dmtcp(x86-64) libdmtcp.so()(64bit) libdmtcp_alloc.so()(64bit) libdmtcp_batch-queue.so()(64bit) libdmtcp_dl.so()(64bit) libdmtcp_ipc.so()(64bit) libdmtcp_modify-env.so()(64bit) libdmtcp_pathvirt.so()(64bit) libdmtcp_pid.so()(64bit) libdmtcp_svipc.so()(64bit) libdmtcp_timer.so()(64bit) libdmtcp_unique-ckpt.so()(64bit)
dmtcp-devel: dmtcp-devel dmtcp-devel(x86-64)
dmtcp-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) dmtcp-debuginfo dmtcp-debuginfo(x86-64)
dmtcp-debugsource: dmtcp-debugsource dmtcp-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1856005 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: fonts, SugarActivity, PHP, Haskell, Perl, Ocaml, Python, R, Java Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856005
--- Comment #24 from Paul Grosu pgrosu@gmail.com --- Hi Orion,
Spec URL: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/~pgrosu/fedora/rawhide/dmtcp.spec SRPM URL: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/~pgrosu/fedora/rawhide/dmtcp-2.6.1~rc1-0.1.fc35.src.r...
We have now addressed the three remaining issues in this latest package. The three issues addressed are:
1. Replace: %dir %{_pkgdocdir} %{_pkgdocdir} with: %{_pkgdocdir}/
Done.
2. Please change License to and add the following comment: # dmtcp.h is ASL-2.0 License: LGPLv3+ and ASL-2.0
Done. We updated dmtcp.spec with the ASL-2.0 (Apache) license.
3. Looks like the tarball in the srpm is different from what you get when you download the source url. This should be fixed.
Done.
Thank you for mentoring us in properly packaging this for Fedora.
Best, - Paul and Gene
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856005
Orion Poplawski orion@nwra.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #25 from Orion Poplawski orion@nwra.com --- Looks good. Approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856005
--- Comment #26 from Paul Grosu pgrosu@gmail.com ---
Hi Orion,
Thank you for helping us, and I am sorry for replying so late. We were under the impression that you might be our sponsor, and that once approved it was going to show up automatically in Fedora with the updated package. We were reading at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process about the following steps:
- The reviewer will review your package. You should fix any blockers that the reviewer identifies. Once the reviewer is happy with the package, the fedora-review flag will be set to +, indicating that the package has passed review.
- If you have not yet been sponsored, request sponsorship by raising an issue at https://pagure.io/packager-sponsors/.
- When your package pass the review, you should use the fedpkg tool to request a git repository for it. Before doing that you will need a pagure_api_token configured (one with "Create a new ticket" ACL) and added into ~/.config/rpkg/fedpkg.conf
[fedpkg.pagure] token = generated-code
What would be our next steps? Do we need to create a GitHub repository? Do we need to create a new fedpkg ticket?
Thank you for helping us through this process, Paul and Gene
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856005
Orion Poplawski orion@nwra.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |
--- Comment #27 from Orion Poplawski orion@nwra.com --- I had sponsored you back on 2019-11-23, but forgot to remove the FE-NEEDSPONSOR block from this bug. Your next step is to create a ticket to unretire dmtcp here: https://pagure.io/releng/new_issue and note this bug.
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=1856005
--- Comment #28 from Paul Grosu pgrosu@gmail.com --- Hi Orion,
Thank you and I have created the following issue:
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/10058
Thank you, Paul and Gene
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856005
Mattia Verga mattia.verga@protonmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed| |2022-03-05 09:52:18
--- Comment #29 from Mattia Verga mattia.verga@protonmail.com --- Package is in repositories, closing.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com