https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1393899
Bug ID: 1393899 Summary: Review Request: libdirq - C implementation of the simple directory queue algorithm Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: lionel.cons@cern.ch QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: http://cern.ch/lionel.cons/c-dirq/libdirq.spec SRPM URL: http://cern.ch/lionel.cons/c-dirq/libdirq-0.4-1.el7.src.rpm Description: Here is the C implementation of the directory queue algorithm already available in EPEL for Perl (perl-Directory-Queue) and Python (python-dirq). Fedora Account System Username: lcons
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1393899
Alejandro Alvarez alejandro.alvarez.ayllon@cern.ch changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |alejandro.alvarez.ayllon@ce | |rn.ch Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |alejandro.alvarez.ayllon@ce | |rn.ch
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1393899
Alejandro Alvarez alejandro.alvarez.ayllon@cern.ch changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1393899
Alejandro Alvarez alejandro.alvarez.ayllon@cern.ch changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #1 from Alejandro Alvarez alejandro.alvarez.ayllon@cern.ch --- build ===== http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16385362
rpmlint output ============== # rpmlint libdirq-0.4-1.el7.src.rpm libdirq.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filesystem -> file system, file-system, systematic libdirq.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scalability -> availability, sociability, inviolability libdirq.src: E: no-changelogname-tag libdirq.src: W: no-url-tag libdirq.src:35: W: make-check-outside-check-section make test libdirq.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install libdirq.src: W: invalid-url Source0: libdirq-0.4.tgz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings.
MUST ====
[OK] The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [OK] Package does not use a name that already exist. [OK] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec [OK] Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [MISSING] Changelog in prescribed format. [OK] The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. [OK] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [OK] The spec file must be written in American English. [OK] The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [--] If a rename, provides/obsoletes is specified. [--] The spec file MUST handle locales properly. [OK] Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[FAIL] 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 must be included in %doc. [OK] -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [OK] Development files must be in a -devel package. [FAIL] Static libraries must be in a -static package. [OK] Devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency [--] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[FAIL] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL.
[OK] The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[OK] Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [OK] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives. [OK] Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages [--] Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file. [OK] A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. [--] A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. [OK] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries [--] If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. [OK] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [OK] Permissions on files must be set properly.
[OK] Each package must consistently use macros. [OK] No external kernel modules [OK] No inclusion of pre-built binaries or libraries [OK] No need for external bits [OK] All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires. [--] If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. [OK] %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#...
[OK] The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [--] If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. [OK] Package installs properly.
SHOULD ====== [--] All patches have an upstream bug link or comment [OK] The source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream. [OK] No PreReq [OK] %makeinstall is not used [OK] Timestamp is preserved [FAIL] Parallel make [--] Subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [--] If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. [OK] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files should be in a -devel pkg [OK] The package builds in mock. [OK] The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [OK] The package functions as described. [OK] If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. [OK] The package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts [--] The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1393899
--- Comment #2 from Alejandro Alvarez alejandro.alvarez.ayllon@cern.ch --- So, in summary, missing bits:
* %changelog is missing * An URL field could be added * make test should be in %check * LICENSE missing in %doc * There is a static library, that should be in -static * The spec file should reference upstream (either repo+tag or tar.gz) * make should be parallel (make %{?_smp_mflags})
Cheers.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1393899
--- Comment #3 from lionel.cons@cern.ch --- Alejandro, thanks for your recommendations.
I have updated the spec file, see:
Spec URL: http://cern.ch/lionel.cons/c-dirq/libdirq.spec SRPM URL: http://cern.ch/lionel.cons/c-dirq/libdirq-0.4-2.el7.src.rpm
Could you please check this new version?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1393899
--- Comment #4 from lionel.cons@cern.ch --- See the corresponding build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16401163
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1393899
--- Comment #5 from Alejandro Alvarez alejandro.alvarez.ayllon@cern.ch --- Looks good. Last missing thing: %defattr(-,root,root,-) for %files static
rpmlint: libdirq.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filesystem -> file system, file-system, systematic libdirq.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scalability -> availability, sociability, inviolability libdirq.src:77: E: files-attr-not-set libdirq.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.
Cheers.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1393899
--- Comment #6 from lionel.cons@cern.ch --- Indeed, now added...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1393899
Alejandro Alvarez alejandro.alvarez.ayllon@cern.ch changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Alejandro Alvarez alejandro.alvarez.ayllon@cern.ch --- Accepted.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1393899
--- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/libdirq
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1393899
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- libdirq-0.4-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-693fad51b5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1393899
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1393899
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- libdirq-0.4-1.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-5367cf57b0
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1393899
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- libdirq-0.4-1.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-7a13703365
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1393899
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- libdirq-0.4-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-5367cf57b0
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1393899
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- libdirq-0.4-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-693fad51b5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1393899
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- libdirq-0.4-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-7a13703365
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1393899
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2016-11-19 16:18:55
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- libdirq-0.4-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1393899
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- libdirq-0.4-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1393899
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- libdirq-0.4-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1393899
Ville Skyttä ville.skytta@iki.fi changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED CC| |ville.skytta@iki.fi Blocks| |496968 (DebugInfo) Resolution|ERRATA |--- Keywords| |Reopened
--- Comment #18 from Ville Skyttä ville.skytta@iki.fi --- (In reply to Alejandro Alvarez from comment #1)
MUST
[OK] -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [OK] %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
The -debuginfo package is not ok, it lacks sources and the package is not built with $RPM_OPT_FLAGS (which is quite probably the reason for the faulty -debuginfo). This needs to be fixed.
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496968 [Bug 496968] Tracking bug for packages with debuginfo problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1393899
lionel.cons@cern.ch changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|alejandro.alvarez.ayllon@ce |lionel.cons@cern.ch |rn.ch |
--- Comment #19 from lionel.cons@cern.ch --- Ville, I've added support for $RPM_OPT_FLAGS and rebuilt the package: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16804470
Could you please check that the -debuginfo package is now ok?
At least, it now contains the source files...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1393899
--- Comment #20 from Ville Skyttä ville.skytta@iki.fi --- It seems to be ok. However, looking at the build log:
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//packages/libdirq/0.4/2.fc26/data/logs/x8...
using cflags=-O -DNDEBUG -pedantic -Wall -Wextra -Wshadow -Wpointer-arith -Wcast-align -Wmissing-prototypes -Wmissing-declarations -fpic [...]
- make -j48 'CFLAGS=-O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -grecord-gcc-switches -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1 -m64 -mtune=generic -fpic'
Looks like the build is now overriding everything in upstream CFLAGS instead of adding the Fedora ones to it. That may have unexpected results; in particular the omission of -DNDEBUG may be a problem. I suggest modifying the build so that it appends RPM_OPT_FLAGS to upstream's default CFLAGS instead of overriding all of them.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1393899
--- Comment #21 from lionel.cons@cern.ch --- Sorry for the late reply.
This should be fixed in the latest spec using upstream 0.5.
Here is the latest build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=21041228
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1393899
Ville Skyttä ville.skytta@iki.fi changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |libdirq-0.5-1.fc27 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed|2016-11-19 16:18:55 |2017-08-11 10:53:42
--- Comment #22 from Ville Skyttä ville.skytta@iki.fi --- Seems ok now in libdirq-0.5-1.fc27, based on a brief look at the build log.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org