[Bug 1246792] New: Review Request: ndctl - Manage "libnvdimm" subsystem devices (Non-volatile Memory)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246792
Bug ID: 1246792 Summary: Review Request: ndctl - Manage "libnvdimm" subsystem devices (Non-volatile Memory) Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: dan.j.williams@intel.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://github.com/pmem/ndctl/releases/download/v41.git791e213c3173/ndctl.sp... SRPM URL: https://github.com/pmem/ndctl/releases/download/v41.git791e213c3173/ndctl-41... Description: Utility library for managing the "libnvdimm" subsystem. The "libnvdimm" subsystem defines a kernel device model and control message interface for platform NVDIMM resources like those defined by the ACPI 6.0 NFIT (NVDIMM Firmware Interface Table).
Fedora Account System Username: djbw
Successful build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10479814
First package submission, and seeking a sponsor.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246792
Dan Williams dan.j.williams@intel.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jamorgan@redhat.com, | |jmoyer@redhat.com Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
--- Comment #1 from Dan Williams dan.j.williams@intel.com --- This library compliments the NVDIMM enabling that was merged into the 4.2 kernel. https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=8...
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=1246792
Eduardo Mayorga e@mayorgalinux.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |e@mayorgalinux.com
--- Comment #2 from Eduardo Mayorga e@mayorgalinux.com --- The links are dead.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246792
--- Comment #3 from Dan Williams dan.j.williams@intel.com --- (In reply to Eduardo Mayorga from comment #2)
The links are dead.
https://github.com/pmem/ndctl/releases/download/v41.git27792e104878/ndctl.sp... https://github.com/pmem/ndctl/releases/download/v41.git27792e104878/ndctl-41...
Updated, apologies for the thrash. Note that the Koji link is still live.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246792
Igor Gnatenko i.gnatenko.brain@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |i.gnatenko.brain@gmail.com
--- Comment #4 from Igor Gnatenko i.gnatenko.brain@gmail.com --- I don't think that you need separate libs subpackage.
-> %{_includedir}/* Will own wrong directories (systemd, for example). -> rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT Is not needed -> %doc No docs -> * Wed Aug 27 2014 Dan Williams Changelog isn't in needed format -> ./autogen.sh Not sure, but probably you want to use "NOCONFIGURE=1 ./autogen.sh" to avoid configuring twice -> %global __requires_exclude pkg-config nope, you don't co-own directory. You don't need to do this.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246792
--- Comment #5 from Dan Williams dan.j.williams@intel.com --- (In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #4)
I don't think that you need separate libs subpackage.
-> %{_includedir}/* Will own wrong directories (systemd, for example).
Changed to: %{_includedir}/ndctl/*
-> rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT Is not needed
Deleted.
-> %doc No docs
Do I need to delete this until docs are ready, or can the spec have this as a placeholder until then?
-> * Wed Aug 27 2014 Dan Williams Changelog isn't in needed format
Deleted.
-> ./autogen.sh Not sure, but probably you want to use "NOCONFIGURE=1 ./autogen.sh" to avoid configuring twice
Verified that configure is called only once.
-> %global __requires_exclude pkg-config nope, you don't co-own directory. You don't need to do this.
Deleted.
...will attach updated .spec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246792
--- Comment #6 from Dan Williams dan.j.williams@intel.com --- Created attachment 1058794 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1058794&action=edit Updated ndctl.spec in response to comment4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246792
--- Comment #7 from Igor Gnatenko i.gnatenko.brain@gmail.com --- -> %{_includedir}/ndctl/* %{_includedir}/ndctl/ -> %{_libdir}/*.so %{_libdir}/libndctl.so -> %{_libdir}/*.so.* %{_libdir}/libndctl.so.* -> %doc Still nothing in %doc. -> No license in %license
P.S. I've not checked libnames, so just talking about wrong usage of '*'.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246792
--- Comment #8 from Dan Williams dan.j.williams@intel.com --- (In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #7)
-> %{_includedir}/ndctl/* %{_includedir}/ndctl/ -> %{_libdir}/*.so %{_libdir}/libndctl.so -> %{_libdir}/*.so.* %{_libdir}/libndctl.so.*
Fixed.
-> %doc Still nothing in %doc.
Ok, deleted.
-> No license in %license
Can you point me to an example? I do have "License:" entries.
P.S. I've not checked libnames, so just talking about wrong usage of '*'.
No worries, above suggestions work.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246792
Dan Williams dan.j.williams@intel.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment|0 |1 #1058794 is| | obsolete| |
--- Comment #9 from Dan Williams dan.j.williams@intel.com --- Created attachment 1058797 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1058797&action=edit Updated ndctl.spec in response to comment7
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246792
--- Comment #10 from Eduardo Mayorga e@mayorgalinux.com --- (In reply to Dan Williams from comment #8)
(In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #7)
-> No license in %license
Can you point me to an example? I do have "License:" entries.
In the files section, you must use the %license macro to include the license text in the package. Use:
%files %license COPYING %doc README.md ...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246792
--- Comment #11 from Dan Williams dan.j.williams@intel.com --- (In reply to Eduardo Mayorga from comment #10)
(In reply to Dan Williams from comment #8)
(In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #7)
-> No license in %license
Can you point me to an example? I do have "License:" entries.
In the files section, you must use the %license macro to include the license text in the package. Use:
%files %license COPYING
Done.
%doc README.md
Oh, thanks! Yes, I forgot to include README.md.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246792
Dan Williams dan.j.williams@intel.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment|0 |1 #1058797 is| | obsolete| |
--- Comment #12 from Dan Williams dan.j.williams@intel.com --- Created attachment 1058812 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1058812&action=edit Updated ndctl.spec in response to comment10
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246792
--- Comment #13 from Dan Williams dan.j.williams@intel.com --- Here's an updated build based on ndctl v47 released to coincide with the kernel ABI that was finalized with the v4.2 kernel.
https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/djbw/ndctl/build/114725/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246792
Dan Williams dan.j.williams@intel.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment|0 |1 #1058812 is| | obsolete| |
--- Comment #14 from Dan Williams dan.j.williams@intel.com --- Created attachment 1072378 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1072378&action=edit Updated ndctl.spec in response to comment13
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246792
David Woodhouse dwmw2@infradead.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dwmw2@infradead.org
--- Comment #15 from David Woodhouse dwmw2@infradead.org ---
Rpmlint (installed packages)
ndctl-libs.x86_64: W: invalid-license LGPLv2.1
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Good_Licenses — I think that should be 'LGPLv2'.
But also, why does nfit.h have a licence header therein claiming that it's under GPL and not LGPL?
ndctl.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndctl
... would be nice.
Otherwise looks fine, from a brief look. You are now sponsored, and I'll do a more thorough review when you update.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246792
David Woodhouse dwmw2@infradead.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |dwmw2@infradead.org
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=1246792
--- Comment #16 from Dan Williams dan.j.williams@intel.com --- (In reply to David Woodhouse from comment #15)
Rpmlint (installed packages)
ndctl-libs.x86_64: W: invalid-license LGPLv2.1
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Good_Licenses — I think that should be 'LGPLv2'.
Ok, will fix.
But also, why does nfit.h have a licence header therein claiming that it's under GPL and not LGPL?
There's the library (libndctl) that is LGPL and the utility (ndctl) that is GPL. I'm not sure what the best way is to reflect that distinction in the spec file.
ndctl.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndctl
... would be nice.
Yeah, I should bite the bullet and get that done.
Otherwise looks fine, from a brief look. You are now sponsored, and I'll do a more thorough review when you update.
Thanks again Dave!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246792
Dan Williams dan.j.williams@intel.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment|0 |1 #1072378 is| | obsolete| |
--- Comment #17 from Dan Williams dan.j.williams@intel.com --- Created attachment 1120314 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1120314&action=edit Updated ndctl.spec in response to comment 16
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246792
Dan Williams dan.j.williams@intel.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment|0 |1 #1120314 is| | obsolete| |
--- Comment #18 from Dan Williams dan.j.williams@intel.com --- Created attachment 1120316 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1120316&action=edit Updated ndctl.spec in response to comment 16
Fix up the license names.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246792
Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rc040203@freenet.de
--- Comment #19 from Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de --- Some remarks on your spec:
* I do not consider these defines useful: %define lname ndctl-libs %define dname ndctl-devel IMO, all they do is to reduce readability.
* %define should not be used in new specs anymore (Use %global instead).
* Except if you want to support very outdated distros (IIRC, < rhel5), %defattr(-,root,root) is not necessary, anymore and should not be used in specs anymore.
* github supports downloading tarballs. Consider to change Source0: into https://github.com/pmem/ndctl/archive/v50.tar.gz#/ndctl-0.50.tar.gz and to remove your make-git-shapshot.sh scripts.
* Append --disable-silent-rules %configure to make building verbose.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246792
--- Comment #20 from David Woodhouse dwmw2@infradead.org --- Once upon a time, ISTR github generated non-reproducible tarballs (timestamps differed, or something stupid). Is that now fixed?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246792
--- Comment #21 from Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de --- I don't know if what you had say ever applied (To my knowledge, most, if not all such cases had been projects moving git-tags), but AFAICT it works for quite some time. I personally am using it in my packages with any problems.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246792
Dan Williams dan.j.williams@intel.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment|0 |1 #1120316 is| | obsolete| |
--- Comment #22 from Dan Williams dan.j.williams@intel.com --- Created attachment 1122550 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1122550&action=edit Updated ndctl.spec in response to comment 19
Addressed Ralf's comments and verified with:
spectool -g -R ndctl.spec rpmbuild -ba ndctl.spec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246792
Dan Williams dan.j.williams@intel.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #23 from Dan Williams dan.j.williams@intel.com --- Setting 'fedora-review' to '+' now that Dave has sponsored me.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246792
Dan Williams dan.j.williams@intel.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(dwmw2@infradead.o | |rg)
--- Comment #24 from Dan Williams dan.j.williams@intel.com --- Oops, Dave needs to set the fedora-review flag to '+', not me.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246792
Dan Williams dan.j.williams@intel.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review+ |
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246792
--- Comment #25 from Dan Williams dan.j.williams@intel.com --- Spec URL: https://github.com/pmem/ndctl/releases/download/v52/ndctl.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/pmem/ndctl/releases/download/v52/ndctl-52-1.fc23.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246792
--- Comment #26 from Dan Williams dan.j.williams@intel.com --- Here's the result of a fedora-review run with the rest of the template filled out and a note about ndctl-devel rpmlint warnings.
C/C++: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [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. [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. [x]: 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 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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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: [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [-]: 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. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. [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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
Rpmlint ------- Checking: ndctl-52-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm ndctl-devel-52-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm ndctl-libs-52-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm ndctl-debuginfo-52-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm ndctl-52-1.fc23.src.rpm ndctl.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libnvdimm -> libidinal ndctl.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libnvdimm -> libidinal ndctl-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libndctl -> libidinal ndctl-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib ndctl-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
Note these last 2 warnings are also reported against devicemapper-devel, so I don't plan to address them.
ndctl-libs.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libnvdimm -> libidinal ndctl.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libnvdimm -> libidinal ndctl.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libnvdimm -> libidinal 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: ndctl-debuginfo-52-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ndctl-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib ndctl-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Requires -------- ndctl-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libkmod.so.2()(64bit) libkmod.so.2(LIBKMOD_5)(64bit) libudev.so.1()(64bit) libudev.so.1(LIBUDEV_183)(64bit) libuuid.so.1()(64bit) libuuid.so.1(UUID_1.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
ndctl-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
ndctl-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libndctl.so.6()(64bit) ndctl-libs(x86-64)
ndctl (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libjson-c.so.2()(64bit) libndctl.so.6()(64bit) libndctl.so.6(LIBNDCTL_1)(64bit) libndctl.so.6(LIBNDCTL_3)(64bit) libuuid.so.1()(64bit) libuuid.so.1(UUID_1.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides -------- ndctl-libs: libndctl.so.6()(64bit) libndctl.so.6(LIBNDCTL_1)(64bit) libndctl.so.6(LIBNDCTL_3)(64bit) ndctl-libs ndctl-libs(x86-64)
ndctl-debuginfo: ndctl-debuginfo ndctl-debuginfo(x86-64)
ndctl-devel: ndctl-devel ndctl-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(libndctl)
ndctl: ndctl ndctl(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n ndctl Buildroot used: fedora-23-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246792
--- Comment #28 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/ndctl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246792
David Woodhouse dwmw2@infradead.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(dwmw2@infradead.o |fedora-review+ |rg) |
--- Comment #27 from David Woodhouse dwmw2@infradead.org --- Looks good to me. Review+. Thanks.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246792
Dan Williams dan.j.williams@intel.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed| |2016-04-07 22:31:28
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246792
Janet Morgan jamorgan@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1271425
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla