[Bug 2174487] New: Review Request: esmi_ib_library - E-SMI: EPYC™ System management Interface In-band Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174487
Bug ID: 2174487 Summary: Review Request: esmi_ib_library - E-SMI: EPYC™ System management Interface In-band Library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: davide@cavalca.name QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/esmi_ib_library/esmi_ib_library.spe... SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/esmi_ib_library/esmi_ib_library-1.5...
Description: The EPYC™ System Management Interface In-band Library, or E-SMI library, is part of the EPYC™ System Management Inband software stack. It is a C library for Linux that provides a user space interface to monitor and control the CPU's power, energy, performance and other system management features.
Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174487
Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://github.com/amd/esmi | |_ib_library
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5583858 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174487
Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags| |fedora-review? Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |michel@michel-slm.name CC| |michel@michel-slm.name
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174487
Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(davide@cavalca.na | |me)
--- Comment #2 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name --- the soversion is not actually 1.5.0.0, it seems to be 1.5? (with 1 as the major version)
You should edit the %files section to avoid globbing, because now in the (unlikely, granted) case upstream suddenly bumps to 10, we will not notice because of the globbing
e.g. change this:
%{_libdir}/libe_smi64.so.1*
to
%global major_version 1 %global minor_version 5 %global full_version %{major_version}.%{minor_version}.0.0
^ and use this in Version: and in the sed replacing get_version_from_tag
%{_libdir}/libe_smi64.so.%{major_version} %{_libdir}/libe_smi64.so.%{major_version}.%{minor_version}
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174487
Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(davide@cavalca.na | |me) |
--- Comment #3 from Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name --- Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/esmi_ib_library/esmi_ib_library.spe... SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/esmi_ib_library/esmi_ib_library-1.5...
Changelog: - Do not glob shared libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174487
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Created attachment 1948847 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1948847&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 5583858 to 5604321
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174487
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5604321 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174487
--- Comment #6 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name --- Almost; %files doc should also have
%dir %{_pkgdocdir}
which currently has no owner
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: 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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [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 successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "University of Illinois/NCSA Open Source License", "University of Illinois/NCSA Open Source License [generated file]". 13 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr- rpmbuild/results/esmi_ib_library/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/doc/esmi_ib_library [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/doc/esmi_ib_library [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 30720 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package 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 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]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in e_smi_tool [?]: 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]: 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]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [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: esmi_ib_library-1.5.0^20220622gitf4ce871-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm esmi_ib_library-devel-1.5.0^20220622gitf4ce871-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm esmi_ib_library-doc-1.5.0^20220622gitf4ce871-1.fc39.noarch.rpm e_smi_tool-1.5.0^20220622gitf4ce871-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm esmi_ib_library-debuginfo-1.5.0^20220622gitf4ce871-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm
esmi_ib_library-debugsource-1.5.0^20220622gitf4ce871-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm esmi_ib_library-1.5.0^20220622gitf4ce871-1.fc39.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpv11hwc_y')] checks: 31, packages: 7
e_smi_tool.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary e_smi_tool e_smi_tool.x86_64: W: no-documentation esmi_ib_library-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: esmi_ib_library-debuginfo-1.5.0^20220622gitf4ce871-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpkmv4bas9')] checks: 31, packages: 1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 6
e_smi_tool.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary e_smi_tool esmi_ib_library-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation e_smi_tool.x86_64: W: no-documentation 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/amd/esmi_ib_library/archive/f4ce8713f3ed5cc4d20a9238d2be7... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a415c574724bad960d80fb398e26dc0872078f6353971f3dcdd894d3aa528b92 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a415c574724bad960d80fb398e26dc0872078f6353971f3dcdd894d3aa528b92
Requires -------- esmi_ib_library (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
esmi_ib_library-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): esmi_ib_library(x86-64) libe_smi64.so.1()(64bit)
esmi_ib_library-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
e_smi_tool (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libe_smi64.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
esmi_ib_library-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
esmi_ib_library-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- esmi_ib_library: esmi_ib_library esmi_ib_library(x86-64) libe_smi64.so.1()(64bit)
esmi_ib_library-devel: esmi_ib_library-devel esmi_ib_library-devel(x86-64)
esmi_ib_library-doc: esmi_ib_library-doc
e_smi_tool: e_smi_tool e_smi_tool(x86-64)
esmi_ib_library-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) esmi_ib_library-debuginfo esmi_ib_library-debuginfo(x86-64) libe_smi64.so.1.5-1.5.0^20220622gitf4ce871-1.fc39.x86_64.debug()(64bit)
esmi_ib_library-debugsource: esmi_ib_library-debugsource esmi_ib_library-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name esmi_ib_library --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: PHP, Haskell, SugarActivity, Perl, Java, Python, Ocaml, fonts, R Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174487
--- Comment #7 from Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name --- Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/esmi_ib_library/esmi_ib_library.spe... SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/esmi_ib_library/esmi_ib_library-1.5...
Changelog: - take ownership of %{_pkgdocdir}
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174487
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Created attachment 1948893 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1948893&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 5604321 to 5604501
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174487
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5604501 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174487
Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |decathorpe@gmail.com
--- Comment #10 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- PS: You MUST drop the (TM) from the package's summary and description. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_trademarks_in_su...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174487
--- Comment #11 from Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name --- Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/esmi_ib_library/esmi_ib_library.spe... SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/esmi_ib_library/esmi_ib_library-1.5...
Changelog: - drop (TM) from summary and description
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174487
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Created attachment 1948899 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1948899&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 5604501 to 5604762
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174487
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5604762 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174487
Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Status|ASSIGNED |POST
--- Comment #14 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name --- LGTM now, APPROVED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174487
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/esmi_ib_library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174487
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-752fc3af23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-752fc3af23
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174487
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Last Closed| |2023-03-08 02:01:59
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-752fc3af23 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174487
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-b4b332a3ce has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-b4b332a3ce
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174487
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-b4b332a3ce has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-b4b332a3ce
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174487
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-b4b332a3ce has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174487
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-1c764430b3 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-1c764430b3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174487
--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-3163f65063 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-3163f65063
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174487
--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-1c764430b3 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-1c764430b3
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174487
--- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-3163f65063 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-3163f65063
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174487
--- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-1c764430b3 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174487
--- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-3163f65063 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com