[Bug 676335] New: Review Request: dmtcp - Checkpoint/Restart functionality for Linux processes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: dmtcp - Checkpoint/Restart functionality for Linux processes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=676335
Summary: Review Request: dmtcp - Checkpoint/Restart functionality for Linux processes Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: kapil@ccs.neu.edu QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: www.ccs.neu.edu/home/kapil/fedora_rpms/dmtcp.spec SRPM URL: www.ccs.neu.edu/home/kapil/fedora_rpms/dmtcp-1.2.0+svn886-1.src.rpm Description: DMTCP (Distributed MultiThreaded Checkpointing) is a tool to transparently checkpointing the state of an arbitrary group of programs including multi-threaded and distributed computations. It operates directly on the user binary executable, with no Linux kernel modules or other kernel mods.
Among the applications supported by DMTCP are OpenMPI, MATLAB, Python, Perl, and many programming languages and shell scripting languages. DMTCP also supports GNU screen sessions, including vim/cscope and emacs. With the use of TightVNC, it can also checkpoint and restart X-Windows applications, as long as they do not use extensions (e.g.: no OpenGL, no video).
NOTE: This is my first package and I need a sponsor.
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=676335
Kapil Arya kapil@ccs.neu.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Platform|All |Unspecified Blocks| |177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
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=676335
Neal Becker ndbecker2@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ndbecker2@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Neal Becker ndbecker2@gmail.com 2011-02-09 19:53:28 EST --- 1. Needs patch.
%build sed -i -e 's/enable_option_checking=fatal/enable_option_checking=no/'\ configure.ac autoreconf --force %configure --disable-option-checking
2. A number of 'file listed twice' warnings.
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=676335
--- Comment #2 from Neal Becker ndbecker2@gmail.com 2011-02-09 19:58:43 EST --- %{_libdir}/libdmtcpaware.so.* %{_libdir}/%{name}/libdmtcpaware.so.*
That seems odd. Install same lib in both places?
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=676335
--- Comment #3 from Kapil Arya kapil@ccs.neu.edu 2011-02-09 20:08:18 EST --- Thanks for review Neal!
I have updated %build section in dmtcp.spec as you suggested.
About the file listed twice warnings, I am not sure how to eliminate them. My guess is that this is due to the fact that we have all the binaries and helping files in %{_libdir}/dmtcp/* and the binaries %{_bindir}/dmtcp_* are actually symlinks to the real binaries in %{_libdir}/dmtcp/dmtcp_*.
Is there a better way to do that?
Similarly %{_libdir}/libdmtcpaware.so.* are symlinks to %{_libdir}/dmtcp/libdmtcpaware.so.*
Should I keep them as is, or move these .so files from %{_libdir}/dmtcp/ to %{_libdir}/?
Thanks, -Kapil
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=676335
--- Comment #4 from Neal Becker ndbecker2@gmail.com 2011-02-10 06:59:07 EST --- I don't know what is best for %{_libdir}/dmtcp/xxx. I don't know enough about dmtcp yet, for one thing. It's fairly unusual to put package-specific stuff into a subdir of libdir. What are these things? Are they all arch-specific?
If things like /usr/lib64/dmtcp/dmtcp_nocheckpoint are binary files, I think /usr/libexec might be the place.
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=676335
--- Comment #5 from Neal Becker ndbecker2@gmail.com 2011-02-10 07:53:53 EST --- I've been reading this thread:
http://www.redhat.com/archives/rhl-devel-list/2005-May/msg00264.html
From that, it sounds like /usr/lib64/dmtcp may be the correct place.
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=676335
--- Comment #6 from Kapil Arya kapil@ccs.neu.edu 2011-02-10 16:09:40 EST --- In /usr/lib64/dmtcp, we have the dmtcp_* binaries and some other helper files that are needed by DMTCP : dmtcphijack.so, mtcp_restart, libmtcp.so etc. And since we were already putting these extra files in /usr/lib64/dmtcp, we placed the binaries and the .so file in there as well so that they can easily find these helper files.
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=676335
--- Comment #7 from Kapil Arya kapil@ccs.neu.edu 2011-03-16 20:24:45 EDT --- Hello,
We have released a new version of DMTCP upstream. It's 1.2.1. Can someone tell me how to update the source rpm and the spec file here. Should I just post the URL to the new package or is there some other way.
Thanks, -Kapil
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=676335
--- Comment #8 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com 2011-03-16 22:59:45 EDT --- Yes, just post the new URLs. You say "we". Are you one of the developers?
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=676335
--- Comment #9 from Kapil Arya kapil@ccs.neu.edu 2011-04-01 17:05:02 EDT --- I am sorry for the delay, but I am back now with the new URLs. Here they are:
Spec URL: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/kapil/fedora_rpms/dmtcp.spec SRPM URL: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/kapil/fedora_rpms/dmtcp-1.2.1-1.1.src.rpm
Please let me know if there are any concerns/comments with respect to the package.
Yes, just post the new URLs. You say "we". Are you one of the developers?
Yes, I am one of the developers of DMTCP.
Thanks, -Kapil
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=676335
--- Comment #10 from Matthew Farrellee matt@redhat.com 2011-05-16 11:55:08 EDT --- I understand there is a dependency on libc.a that is being eliminated, please update when that change is available.
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=676335
--- Comment #11 from Kapil Arya kapil@ccs.neu.edu 2011-05-28 16:41:28 EDT --- I am again sorry for the delay in responding to this thread. Here are the links to the new SRPM and Spec file: Spec URL: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/kapil/fedora_rpms/dmtcp.spec SRPM URL: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/kapil/fedora_rpms/dmtcp-1.2.1+svn1031-5.1.src.rp...
This package eliminates the dependency on libc.a.
We are also planning a new release in the next week or two. I will post the new links when it's done.
Thanks, -Kapil
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=676335
--- Comment #12 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com 2011-07-20 17:42:07 EDT --- Kapil, do you plan to update your SRPM to 1.2.2? Also, do you still need a sponsor? If so, can you point to any of the activities covered here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group
besides this package, of course? :-)
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=676335
--- Comment #13 from Kapil Arya kapil@ccs.neu.edu 2011-07-20 17:55:09 EDT --- Hi Jerry,
Thanks for the pointer. I do need a sponsor :-) for this package and another package that will be rolled out in the next month or two :).
At this point we are planning on releasing 1.2.3 in the next day or two and I will update the SRPM as soon as 1.2.3 is out.
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=676335
--- Comment #14 from Kapil Arya kapil@ccs.neu.edu 2011-07-22 16:12:17 EDT --- Hi All,
Here is the url for 1.2.3 release: Spec URL: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/kapil/fedora_rpms/dmtcp.spec SRPM URL: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/kapil/fedora_rpms/dmtcp-1.2.3-2.1.src.rpm
Thanks, Kapil
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=676335
--- Comment #15 from Neal Becker ndbecker2@gmail.com 2011-07-22 17:26:30 EDT --- Doesn't build on my f15 x86_64 platform:
configure: error: unrecognized options: --disable-dependency-tracking
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=676335
--- Comment #16 from Kapil Arya kapil@ccs.neu.edu 2011-07-22 17:56:47 EDT --- I used OpenBuild services by OpenSUSE and the package built fine. Here is the link: https://build.opensuse.org/package/show?package=dmtcp&project=home%3Akar...
Is there an way to fix this bug?
Thanks, -Kapil
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=676335
--- Comment #17 from Neal Becker ndbecker2@gmail.com 2011-07-22 18:20:49 EDT --- I'm totally lost. I tried adding autoreconf --force --install
before %configure
which usually fixes this sort of thing. Didn't help.
The top-level configure file seems to have been rebuilt (it's got the current date/time), but doesn't seem to grok --disable-dependency-checking.
OTOH, dmtcp/configure explicitly features it (it's even part of the --help documentation).
I don't know enough about autoconf etc.
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=676335
--- Comment #18 from Neal Becker ndbecker2@gmail.com 2011-07-24 21:03:50 EDT --- I believe the problem is in configure.ac
dnl Autoconf manual says option checking is set to warn ("yes") by dnl by default. But it's actually set to "no". dnl So, we enforce our own choice ("fatal") if autoconf won't cooperate. enable_option_checking=fatal
Please remove this, and I think it should work.
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=676335
--- Comment #19 from Kapil Arya kapil@ccs.neu.edu 2011-07-25 12:10:45 EDT --- Thanks for the info Neal.
This problem has been fixed upstream by adding dependency-tracking option to top-level configure.ac. I will put the updated links to sprm and spec file in a few hours.
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=676335
--- Comment #20 from Kapil Arya kapil@ccs.neu.edu 2011-07-25 23:27:37 EDT --- Hi All,
Here are the new urls fixing the configure issue: Spec URL: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/kapil/fedora_rpms/dmtcp.spec SRPM URL: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/kapil/fedora_rpms/dmtcp-1.2.3+svn1214-1.1.src.rp...
Please let me know if there are some other issues.
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=676335
--- Comment #21 from Neal Becker ndbecker2@gmail.com 2011-07-26 07:09:03 EDT --- /usr/lib64/dmtcp: total used in directory 2356 available 38220644 drwxr-xr-x 3 root root 4096 Jul 26 07:02 . dr-xr-xr-x. 180 root root 135168 Jul 26 07:02 .. -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 169928 Jul 26 06:58 dmtcp_checkpoint -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 149600 Jul 26 06:58 dmtcp_command -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 196200 Jul 26 06:58 dmtcp_coordinator -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 713464 Jul 26 06:58 dmtcphijack.so -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 430024 Jul 26 06:58 dmtcp_inspector -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 4696 Jul 26 06:58 dmtcp_nocheckpoint -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 498112 Jul 26 06:58 dmtcp_restart drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Jul 26 07:02 examples -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 87696 Jul 26 06:58 libmtcp.so
These things don't all belong here. Certainly not examples (should be in /usr/share/dmtcpxxx/doc).
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=676335
--- Comment #22 from Kapil Arya kapil@ccs.neu.edu 2011-08-18 20:45:06 EDT --- Hi All,
Here are the links to updated SPRM and SPEC which address the concerns raised by Neal and others. Please let us know the feedback.
Spec URL: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/kapil/fedora_rpms/dmtcp.spec SRPM URL: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/kapil/fedora_rpms/dmtcp-1.2.3-1.svn1264.fc15.src...
Thanks, -Kapil
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=676335
--- Comment #23 from Neal Becker ndbecker2@gmail.com 2011-08-19 07:20:27 EDT --- 1. should own it's doc dir: rpm -qf /usr/share/doc/dmtcp-1.2.3/ file /usr/share/doc/dmtcp-1.2.3 is not owned by any package
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=676335
--- Comment #24 from Neal Becker ndbecker2@gmail.com 2011-08-19 07:59:12 EDT --- 2. Why is the lib package called libdmtcpaware1, rather than just libdmtcpaware?
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=676335
--- Comment #25 from Neal Becker ndbecker2@gmail.com 2011-09-08 07:57:45 EDT --- I fixed comment 23, and one rpmlint error (extraneous devel depenency)
There are 2 other issues:
1. I still need answer to comment 24. Is the '1' a version number? It doesn't belong there.
2. dmtcp.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/bin/mtcp_restart
does mtcp_restart have to be statically linked?
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=676335
--- Comment #26 from Kapil Arya kapil@ccs.neu.edu 2011-10-03 14:56:50 EDT --- Hello Neal,
1. The '1' in libdmtcpaware1 resembles to the major library number. We were following int the similar way as glibc does. Is there a problem with that?
2. Unfortunately, mtcp_restart has to be statically linked for DMTCP to work properly with various things like ASLR and vdso.
Thanks, -Kapil
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=676335
--- Comment #27 from Neal Becker ndbecker2@gmail.com 2011-10-03 18:30:41 EDT --- 1. Here is an example:
ls -l /usr/lib64/libunuran* lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 19 May 13 13:53 /usr/lib64/libunuran.so -> libunuran.so.15.0.0 lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 19 May 13 13:53 /usr/lib64/libunuran.so.15 -> libunuran.so.15.0.0 -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 732880 Feb 7 2011 /usr/lib64/libunuran.so.15.0.0
rpm -qf /usr/lib64/libunuran* unuran-devel-1.8.0-2.fc15.x86_64 unuran-1.8.0-2.fc15.x86_64 unuran-1.8.0-2.fc15.x86_64
As for glibc: rpm -q glibc glibc-2.14-5.x86_64 glibc-2.14-5.i686
rpm -qf /lib64/libc-2.14.so glibc-2.14-5.x86_64
Here, the name is glibc, and the version is 2.14. The rpmspec revision is 5. So no, the '1' is not part of the name. And the soname is handled by the dynamic linker, it's not part of the file name.
At least, that's my understanding.
2. If it has to be statically linked, I think that is OK, we just need to ask for some exception from the usual rules (statically linked binaries are discouraged).
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=676335
--- Comment #28 from Kapil Arya kapil@ccs.neu.edu 2011-10-03 18:44:58 EDT --- Aha. Thanks for the clarification.
Since we created the debian package earlier, we used the debian naming convention (debian uses names like libc6, libc6-dbg, libc6-dev etc.).
Now that it's clear, we should revert the package name to libdmtcpaware without the '1'.
Since you mentioned earlier that you made some fixes to the spec file, would it be possible to provide us that spec file so that I can make the changes or if you prefer, you can make this change. Either is fine with me.
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=676335
Thomas Spura tomspur@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tomspur@fedoraproject.org
--- Comment #29 from Thomas Spura tomspur@fedoraproject.org 2011-10-04 16:27:10 EDT --- (In reply to comment #16)
I used OpenBuild services by OpenSUSE and the package built fine. Here is the link: https://build.opensuse.org/package/show?package=dmtcp&project=home%3Akar...
Is there an way to fix this bug?
There are many differences between opensuse and fedora, so I'm afraid, that it won't be easy possible to: * use the OpenBuild service for testing fedora spec files * using the same spec in both distributions
Some issues: - disable-option-tracking results in failure of configure: setting enable_option_checking=no in configure.ac helps here, see comment #1 - Where do you have the source from? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Referencing_Source - %make_install is way different from the usual "make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} and only should be used as last resort. Please use the "make install ..." command - the "static" packages are named e.g. libdmtcpaware-static (without the -devel in between) - "# disable the test for now as bash is failing with 32-bit when built on 64-bit machine.": - cp QUICK-START COPYING %{buildroot}/%{_defaultdocdir}/%{name}-%{version}/ fails because the directory doesn't exist yet. %doc them in the %files section would be best here (apparently you don't install docs within %make_install). - Requireing should be done with %{_isa} (also the devel packages etc): https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Requiring_Base_Package
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=676335
--- Comment #30 from Kapil Arya kapil@ccs.neu.edu 2011-10-04 16:53:23 EDT --- Thanks Thomas, for pointing out the differences.
We do realize now that we would need separate spec files for the two distros and have started working in that direction.
(In reply to comment #29)
(In reply to comment #16)
I used OpenBuild services by OpenSUSE and the package built fine. Here is the link: https://build.opensuse.org/package/show?package=dmtcp&project=home%3Akar...
Is there an way to fix this bug?
There are many differences between opensuse and fedora, so I'm afraid, that it won't be easy possible to:
- use the OpenBuild service for testing fedora spec files
- using the same spec in both distributions
Some issues:
- disable-option-tracking results in failure of configure: setting enable_option_checking=no in configure.ac helps here, see comment #1
- Where do you have the source from? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Referencing_Source
The latest sources (comment #22) were generated on a fedora 15 virtual machine. (The earlier ones were generated by OpenBuild service, but now we are generating in the fedora15 VM).
- %make_install is way different from the usual "make install
DESTDIR=%{buildroot} and only should be used as last resort. Please use the "make install ..." command
Ok.
- the "static" packages are named e.g. libdmtcpaware-static (without the -devel in between)
Will take care of this.
- "# disable the test for now as bash is failing with 32-bit when built on
64-bit machine.":
I will go back an recheck this. This used to be true for OpenBuild services, but since we are not using them any more, I need to confirm this.
- cp QUICK-START COPYING %{buildroot}/%{_defaultdocdir}/%{name}-%{version}/ fails because the directory doesn't exist yet. %doc them in the %files section would be best here (apparently you don't install docs within %make_install).
Will fix it as well.
- Requireing should be done with %{_isa} (also the devel packages etc): https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Requiring_Base_Package
Thanks for the pointer. I will make these changes and those suggested by Neal and put a pointer to the updated RPM and SPEC file here.
Thanks, -Kapil
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=676335
Timothy St. Clair tstclair@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tstclair@redhat.com AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |tstclair@redhat.com
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=676335
--- Comment #31 from Kapil Arya kapil@ccs.neu.edu 2011-10-25 19:09:53 EDT --- Hi All,
I have updated the spec file as suggested by Neal and Thomas. Here are the URLs:
Spec URL: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/kapil/fedora_rpms/dmtcp.spec SRPM URL: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/kapil/fedora_rpms/dmtcp-1.2.3-2.svn1321.fc15.src...
Please let me know if I missed something.
Thanks, -Kapil
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=676335
Neal Becker ndbecker2@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review+
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=676335
Thomas Spura tomspur@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?
--- Comment #32 from Thomas Spura tomspur@fedoraproject.org 2011-10-31 13:47:47 EDT --- * Assigned To: Timothy St. Clair * APPROVED by Neal Becker without a comment * Don't know who is the sponsor for Kapil Arya here (of if sponsord in another bug)
What's going on here?
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=676335
Neal Becker ndbecker2@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo? |
--- Comment #33 from Neal Becker ndbecker2@gmail.com 2011-10-31 14:32:36 EDT --- 1. I was attempting to accept ownership of this. Sorry if I did not proceed correctly. What do I need to do?
2. It was not my attempt to APPROVE this. I thought setting the flag was to request review.
3. Please see my latest here: http://nbecker.fedorapeople.org/dmtcp.spec http://nbecker.fedorapeople.org/dmtcp-1.2.3-3.svn1321.fc15.src.rpm
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=676335
--- Comment #34 from Thomas Spura tomspur@fedoraproject.org 2011-10-31 15:10:36 EDT --- (In reply to comment #33)
- I was attempting to accept ownership of this. Sorry if I did not proceed
correctly. What do I need to do?
Ah, I understand.
Please open your own review request (so that bug opener=later package owner) and close this as a dublicate of your new one. (Don't know if the NEEDSPONSOR flag needs to get cleard...)
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=676335
Thomas Spura tomspur@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review+ |
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=676335
Neal Becker ndbecker2@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |DUPLICATE Last Closed| |2011-10-31 19:30:01
--- Comment #35 from Neal Becker ndbecker2@gmail.com 2011-10-31 19:30:01 EDT --- I am taking ownership of this (at the request of upstream), so am closing
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 750394 ***
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla