Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: UST - LTTng Userspace Tracer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717748
Summary: Review Request: UST - LTTng Userspace Tracer Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: yannick.brosseau@gmail.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: ---
Spec URL: http://www.dorsal.polymtl.ca/~ybrosseau/fedora/SPECS/ust.spec SRPM URL: http://www.dorsal.polymtl.ca/~ybrosseau/fedora/SRPMS/ust-0.14-2.src.rpm Description: The userspace tracer is designed to provide detailed information about userspace activity. Like the kernel tracer, performance is the main goal. Tracing does not require system calls or traps. UST instrumentation points may be added in any userspace code including signal handlers and libraries.
from: http://lttng.org/ust
This package depends on liburcu, which is review request 717337 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717337
(This series is my first fedora packages, so I'll 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=717748
Yannick Brosseau yannick.brosseau@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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=717748
Yannick Brosseau yannick.brosseau@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |717337
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=717748
--- Comment #1 from Yannick Brosseau yannick.brosseau@gmail.com 2011-06-29 16:44:06 EDT --- I've an new SRPMS: http://www.dorsal.polymtl.ca/~ybrosseau/fedora/SRPMS/ust-0.14-2.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=717748
Paolo Bonzini pbonzini@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pbonzini@redhat.com
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Bonzini pbonzini@redhat.com 2011-07-01 08:24:02 EDT --- Have you consider putting UST in the Fedora 16 features, so that it is advertised in the release notes? You still have almost two weeks.
See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Policy for more information on the process, it is lighter-weight than it seems! ;)
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=717748
--- Comment #3 from Yannick Brosseau yannick.brosseau@gmail.com 2011-07-05 13:49:18 EDT --- Thanks, I'll look into it.
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=717748
--- Comment #4 from Yannick Brosseau yannick.brosseau@gmail.com 2011-09-02 16:59:12 EDT --- A small update here:
SPEC: http://www.dorsal.polymtl.ca/~ybrosseau/fedora/SPECS/ust.spec SRPM: http://www.dorsal.polymtl.ca/~ybrosseau/fedora/SRPMS/ust-0.14-3.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=717748
Michael Schwendt mschwendt@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mschwendt@gmail.com
--- Comment #5 from Michael Schwendt mschwendt@gmail.com 2011-09-18 12:11:30 EDT --- A first brief look:
License: LGPLv2
File 'COPYING' and the source file headers explicitly mention "any later version", so:
License: LGPLv2+
BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-build
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
Requires: liburcu >= 0.6.2
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Explicit_Requires
%package -n libust-devel ... Requires: liburcu-devel Requires: libust = %{version}-%{release} Requires: libustinstr-malloc = %{version}-%{release} Requires: libustfork = %{version}-%{release} Requires: libustconsumer = %{version}-%{release} Requires: libustctl = %{version}-%{release}
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package
%configure --disable-silent-rules --disable-dependency-tracking ... make CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" %{?_smp_mflags}
Since %configure already passes on the CFLAGS (see 'rpm --eval %configure'), is the extra CFLAGS definition when running Make necessary?
%clean rm -rf %buildroot
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25clean
%post -n ust /sbin/ldconfig /usr/sbin/install-info /usr/share/doc/ust.info.gz %preun -n ust /usr/sbin/install-info --delete /usr/share/doc/ust.info.gz
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Scriptlets
%{_libdir}/libust.a
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Librari...
%{_datadir}/info/ust.info.gz
There also is %{_infodir} which is set by %configure, too.
%files
Sometimes you use -n to explicitly specify the full package name (e.g. %post -n ust), here you don't. Then you also omit the -n for the base package's %post, %preun and %postun scriptlet sections for consistency.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Documentation
Files COPYING, README and TODO could be included.
It seems the test suite currently cannot be run. If it could be run during the build process, it would make sense to create a %check section for it.
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=717748
--- Comment #6 from Yannick Brosseau yannick.brosseau@gmail.com 2011-10-12 11:13:11 EDT --- Here's an updated version following your comments. (With a new upstream release)
SPEC: http://www.dorsal.polymtl.ca/~ybrosseau/fedora/SPECS/ust.spec SRPM: http://www.dorsal.polymtl.ca/~ybrosseau/fedora/SRPMS/ust-0.15-1.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=717748
Michael Schwendt mschwendt@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |mschwendt@gmail.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=717748
Michael Schwendt mschwendt@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEW CC|mschwendt@gmail.com | Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | AssignedTo|mschwendt@gmail.com |nobody@fedoraproject.org
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=717748
--- Comment #7 from Yannick Brosseau yannick.brosseau@gmail.com 2012-02-27 10:07:06 EST --- A new version will be released soon. I'll post a new package then...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717748
Yannick Brosseau yannick.brosseau@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On|717337 |
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717748
Scott Tsai scottt.tw@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |scottt.tw@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |scottt.tw@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717748
--- Comment #8 from Yannick Brosseau yannick.brosseau@gmail.com --- Updating this request with the latest LTTng-UST package.
SPEC: http://www.dorsal.polymtl.ca/~ybrosseau/fedora/SPECS/lttng-ust.spec SRPMS: http://www.dorsal.polymtl.ca/~ybrosseau/fedora/SRPMS/lttng-ust-2.0.3-1.fc17....
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717748
Yannick Brosseau yannick.brosseau@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: UST - LTTng |Review Request: LTTng-UST - |Userspace Tracer |LTTng Userspace Tracer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717748
--- Comment #9 from Scott Tsai scottt.tw@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #8)
Building on F17 fails for me with:
/bin/sh ../../libtool --tag=CC --mode=link gcc -Wall -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic -Wl,-z,relro -o hello hello.o tp.o ../../liblttng-ust/liblttng-ust.la -lurcu-bp -lurcu-bp -luuid -lpthread -ldl libtool: link: DIE_RPATH_DIE="/usr/lib64:" gcc -Wall -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic -Wl,-z -Wl,relro -o .libs/hello hello.o tp.o ../../liblttng-ust/.libs/liblttng-ust.so -lurcu-bp -luuid -lpthread -ldl /usr/bin/ld: warning: liblttng-ust-tracepoint.so.0, needed by ../../liblttng-ust/.libs/liblttng-ust.so, not found (try using -rpath or -rpath-link) ../../liblttng-ust/.libs/liblttng-ust.so: undefined reference to `init_tracepoint' ../../liblttng-ust/.libs/liblttng-ust.so: undefined reference to `__tracepoint_probe_register' ../../liblttng-ust/.libs/liblttng-ust.so: undefined reference to `exit_tracepoint' ../../liblttng-ust/.libs/liblttng-ust.so: undefined reference to `__tracepoint_probe_unregister' collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status make[3]: *** [hello] Error 1 make[3]: Leaving directory `/home/scottt/work/lttng/fedora/lttng-ust-2.0.3/tests/hello'
Since: 1. ld is performing a non-shared, non relocatable link for .libs/hello 2. We patched libtool to get rid of RPATH 3. hello.o requires liblttng-ust.so which in turn requires liblttng-ust-tracepoint.so.0 We need to either pass the directory containing liblttng-ust-tracepoint.so.0 as -rpath-link or specify liblttng-ust-tracepoint.so as an input to ld.
The following snippet in lttnt-ust.spec would accomplish the later:
+# link all dependent libs +#sed -i 's|^link_all_deplibs=no|link_all_deplibs=unknown|g' libtool + +make %{?_smp_mflags} V=1
%install make DESTDIR=%buildroot install
Yannick, could you build actually build without a patch to this effect?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717748
--- Comment #10 from Yannick Brosseau yannick.brosseau@gmail.com --- I was able to build it without the patch, but now I'm trying with koji and targeting F17 and it fail there. I'll investigate and post a new version.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717748
--- Comment #11 from Yannick Brosseau yannick.brosseau@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #9)
(In reply to comment #8)
Building on F17 fails for me with:
+# link all dependent libs +#sed -i 's|^link_all_deplibs=no|link_all_deplibs=unknown|g' libtool
+make %{?_smp_mflags} V=1
%install make DESTDIR=%buildroot install
Yannick, could you build actually build without a patch to this effect?
I've updated the files, can you try again? Now the package reinitialize the libtool script instead of doing a series of sed.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717748
--- Comment #12 from Scott Tsai scottt.tw@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #11) Yannick, After your libtoolize change I can now build the packages successfully. I suspect you didn't see the failture from comment #9 before because you were using rpmbuild locally and you already have a copy of the lttng-ust libraries in /usr/lib6{,64}. (Having the libraries in the default linker search path is equivalent to helping ld find them via -rpath-link.)
Comments on the .spec file follows:
1. License should be "LGPLv2 and GPLv2"
liblttng-ust-ctl/ustctl.c is GPLv2 only and is used to build liblttng-ust-ctl.so. ust-ctl.h is also GPLv2 only and shipped in the -devel package.
The assertion in the COPYING file that ustctl.c is only used by lttng-sessiond is not true when we ship it in a library with a public header.
BTW, lttng-ust being LGPLv2 only precludes using it with the {,L}LGPLv3 libraries from Samba, which is unfortunate.
2. BuildRequires userspace-rcu-devel >= 0.6.6
-BuildRequires: pkgconfig libuuid-devel userspace-rcu-devel texinfo gcc-c++ systemtap-sdt-devel +BuildRequires: libuuid-devel texinfo systemtap-sdt-devel +BuildRequires: userspace-rcu-devel >= 0.6.6
lttng-ust's configure.ac wants userspace-rcu >= 0.6.6 and since the older userspace-rcu-0.4.1 has been in Fedora since Feb 2011 having this versioned build requires is easier for users rebuilding this RPM locally.
Remove gcc-c++ from BuildRequires per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2. Also remove pkgconfig from BuildRequires since it's not actually used in the build process.
Note that installing lttng-ust.pc doesn't require pkgconfig. The pkgconfig related depencies in -devel would still be automatically picked up by rpmbuild.
3. Unless you're targetting EPEL5, remove the BuildRoot tag, the %clean section and the second %defattr() in the %files -n %{name}-devel section.
Per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag:
-BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-build
-%clean -rm -rf %buildroot
%files -n %{name}-devel -%defattr(-,root,root) %{_bindir}/lttng-gen-tp
The last point in particular is mostly to make the fedora-review tool happy.
4. ExclusiveArch and arm
From a quick reading of configure.ac and the git logs, I believe lttng-ust does
support the ARM architecture. I recommend just removing the ExclusiveArch line unless you have a good reason.
5. I recommend adding a comment in the .spec on why "--with-java-jdk" isn't enabled:
%configure --docdir=%{_docdir}/%{name} --disable-static --with-sdt
+# --with-java-jdk +# Java support was disabled in lttng-ust's stable-2.0 branch upstream in +# http://git.lttng.org/?p=lttng-ust.git;a=commit;h=655a0d112540df3001f9823cd3b... +# We can revisit enabling this when the next major version is released. + make %{?_smp_mflags} V=1
6. Use quotes consistently for %buildroot like other RPM directory name macros
%install -make DESTDIR=%buildroot install -rm -vf %buildroot%{_libdir}/*.la +make DESTDIR=%{buildroot} install +rm -vf %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/*.la
%post -p /sbin/ldconfig %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig
7. Upstream recently released lttng-ust-2.0.4 I looked at the git log and suspect we'd want to pick up the various deadlock fixes.
I'll approve this review once the above points are addressed.
On a separate note, while performing this reivew I tried to run the code in the tests/ directory (the few that were not disabled upstream) and the example shipped as documentation. But since we don't lttng-tools and the log viewers packaged, I was only able to verify that the sample and test programs can be built and run but can't actually see the traces.
Do you intend to package lttng-tools nad the log viewers?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717748
--- Comment #13 from Yannick Brosseau yannick.brosseau@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #12)
(In reply to comment #11) Yannick, After your libtoolize change I can now build the packages successfully. I suspect you didn't see the failture from comment #9 before because you were using rpmbuild locally and you already have a copy of the lttng-ust libraries in /usr/lib6{,64}. (Having the libraries in the default linker search path is equivalent to helping ld find them via -rpath-link.)
Yes, I also think that could have been the problem. I did a complete clean of lttng-ust before redoing this package.
Comments on the .spec file follows:
- License should be "LGPLv2 and GPLv2"
liblttng-ust-ctl/ustctl.c is GPLv2 only and is used to build liblttng-ust-ctl.so. ust-ctl.h is also GPLv2 only and shipped in the -devel package.
OK Do you think it would be more appropriate to put it into a separate package?
BTW, lttng-ust being LGPLv2 only precludes using it with the {,L}LGPLv3 libraries from Samba, which is unfortunate.
From https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility
I don't think its a problem to use LTTng-Ust with LGPLV3 application or lib.
- BuildRequires userspace-rcu-devel >= 0.6.6
-BuildRequires: pkgconfig libuuid-devel userspace-rcu-devel texinfo gcc-c++ systemtap-sdt-devel +BuildRequires: libuuid-devel texinfo systemtap-sdt-devel +BuildRequires: userspace-rcu-devel >= 0.6.6
Good point, forgot that one.
Remove gcc-c++ from BuildRequires per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2. Also remove pkgconfig from BuildRequires since it's not actually used in the build process.
Note that installing lttng-ust.pc doesn't require pkgconfig. The pkgconfig related depencies in -devel would still be automatically picked up by rpmbuild.
- Unless you're targetting EPEL5, remove the BuildRoot tag, the %clean
section and the second %defattr() in the %files -n %{name}-devel section.
OK
- ExclusiveArch and arm
From a quick reading of configure.ac and the git logs, I believe lttng-ust does support the ARM architecture. I recommend just removing the ExclusiveArch line unless you have a good reason.
I'll review the list of supported arch and replace it by an explicit ExcludeArch if necessary.
- I recommend adding a comment in the .spec on why "--with-java-jdk" isn't
enabled:
OK
- Use quotes consistently for %buildroot like other RPM directory name
macros
OK
- Upstream recently released lttng-ust-2.0.4
I looked at the git log and suspect we'd want to pick up the various deadlock fixes.
Yes, good catch, we want those fixes.
I'll approve this review once the above points are addressed.
On a separate note, while performing this reivew I tried to run the code in the tests/ directory (the few that were not disabled upstream) and the example shipped as documentation. But since we don't lttng-tools and the log viewers packaged, I was only able to verify that the sample and test programs can be built and run but can't actually see the traces.
Do you intend to package lttng-tools nad the log viewers?
Yes, I intend to do lttng-tools right after finishing LTTng-UST. I plan to do babeltrace soon after, when the 1.0 release is done. (Which should be in a couple of weeks max.)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717748
--- Comment #14 from Scott Tsai scottt.tw@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #13)
- License should be "LGPLv2 and GPLv2"
OK Do you think it would be more appropriate to put it into a separate package?
No, I think the existing arrangement is fine. There are many packages with "LGPLxx and GPLxx" in the license field in Fedora. I just always want to make a good faith effort on documenting the license during package review.
- ExclusiveArch and arm
I'll review the list of supported arch and replace it by an explicit ExcludeArch if necessary.
ok.
For your convenience, I've uploaded the .spec with my recommended changes here: http://scottt.tw/fedora/lttng-ust.spec After you update your .spec I'll do a quick diff against that and I think we're good.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717748
--- Comment #15 from Yannick Brosseau yannick.brosseau@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #14)
New version:
SPEC: http://www.dorsal.polymtl.ca/~ybrosseau/fedora/SPECS/lttng-ust.spec SRPMS: http://www.dorsal.polymtl.ca/~ybrosseau/fedora/SRPMS/lttng-ust-2.0.3-1.fc17....
I've updated to 2.0.4. Was also missing a reference to MIT licence for some headers.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717748
--- Comment #16 from Yannick Brosseau yannick.brosseau@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #15)
(In reply to comment #14)
New version:
SPEC: http://www.dorsal.polymtl.ca/~ybrosseau/fedora/SPECS/lttng-ust.spec SRPMS: http://www.dorsal.polymtl.ca/~ybrosseau/fedora/SRPMS/lttng-ust-2.0.3-1.fc17. src.rpm
Sorry, previous URL for SRPM was wrong...
SPEC: http://www.dorsal.polymtl.ca/~ybrosseau/fedora/SPECS/lttng-ust.spec SRPMS: http://www.dorsal.polymtl.ca/~ybrosseau/fedora/SRPMS/lttng-ust-2.0.4-1.fc17....
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717748
Scott Tsai scottt.tw@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #17 from Scott Tsai scottt.tw@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #16) Yannick, in your latest .spe, userspace-rcu-devel is listed twice in BuildRequires.
Formal review assuming that fixed follows:
Package Review ==============
Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated
==== C/C++ ==== [x]: MUST Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: MUST ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: MUST Package contains no static executables. [x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: MUST Package is not relocatable. [x]: MUST Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
==== Generic ==== [x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine [x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required [x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: MUST Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required [x]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x]: MUST 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 %doc. [x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: MUST Package installs properly. [-]: MUST Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. (EPEL5) Note: Only applicable for EL-5 [x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint lttng-ust-2.0.3-1.fc18.src.rpm
lttng-ust.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tracepoints -> trace points, trace-points, contraception 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
rpmlint lttng-ust-debuginfo-2.0.3-1.fc18.i686.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint lttng-ust-2.0.3-1.fc18.i686.rpm
lttng-ust.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tracepoints -> trace points, trace-points, contraception lttng-ust.i686: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/liblttng-ust-ctl.so.0.0.0 exit@GLIBC_2.0 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
rpmlint lttng-ust-devel-2.0.3-1.fc18.i686.rpm
lttng-ust-devel.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US userspace -> user space, user-space, users pace 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
The "tracepoint" should be allowed in the description. liblttng-ust-ctl calling exit() is fine.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. MD5SUM this package : ff336f47ff54e8147bd892940b495785 MD5SUM upstream package : ff336f47ff54e8147bd892940b495785
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: SHOULD 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]: SHOULD Dist tag is present. [x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [x]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. [x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SHOULD The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SHOULD Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL. [x]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4178203
[x]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
Approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717748
Yannick Brosseau yannick.brosseau@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review+ |fedora-review?
--- Comment #18 from Yannick Brosseau yannick.brosseau@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #17)
(In reply to comment #16) Yannick, in your latest .spe, userspace-rcu-devel is listed twice in BuildRequires.
Fixed.
lttng-ust-devel.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US userspace -> user space, user-space, users pace 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
The "tracepoint" should be allowed in the description. liblttng-ust-ctl calling exit() is fine.
And I filed a bug report upstream to ask if its possible to get rid of it. https://bugs.lttng.org/issues/267
Approved.
Thanks!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717748
Scott Tsai scottt.tw@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #19 from Scott Tsai scottt.tw@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #18)
I think you meant to change the "fedora-cvs" flag to "?" and not the "fedora-review" flag (which should stay at "+" for a successful review).
You'll want to post a "new package scm request" snippet formatted like those on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_SCM_admin_requests#New_Packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717748
Yannick Brosseau yannick.brosseau@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #20 from Yannick Brosseau yannick.brosseau@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: lttng-ust Short Description: LTTng Userspace Tracer library Owners: greenscientist Branches: f17 el6 InitialCC:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717748
--- Comment #21 from Yannick Brosseau yannick.brosseau@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #19)
(In reply to comment #18)
I think you meant to change the "fedora-cvs" flag to "?" and not the "fedora-review" flag (which should stay at "+" for a successful review).
You'll want to post a "new package scm request" snippet formatted like those on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_SCM_admin_requests#New_Packages
Yes, I think I miss handled something when I have answered you.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717748
--- Comment #22 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- SCM request name and Summary name don't match, please correct.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717748
Scott Tsai scottt.tw@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: LTTng-UST - |Review Request: lttng-ust - |LTTng Userspace Tracer |LTTng Userspace Tracer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717748
Scott Tsai scottt.tw@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717748
Yannick Brosseau yannick.brosseau@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: lttng-ust - |Review Request: lttng-ust - |LTTng Userspace Tracer |LTTng Userspace Tracer | |library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717748
--- Comment #23 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717748
--- Comment #24 from Yannick Brosseau yannick.brosseau@gmail.com --- For those interested, I've posted a review request for LTTng-tools in bug #834481
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717748
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717748
--- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- lttng-ust-2.0.4-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/lttng-ust-2.0.4-2.fc17
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717748
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- lttng-ust-2.0.4-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717748
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2012-07-11 19:59:29
--- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- lttng-ust-2.0.4-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717748
--- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- lttng-ust-2.0.4-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/lttng-ust-2.0.4-2.el6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717748
--- Comment #29 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- lttng-ust-2.0.4-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717748
RKP rupeshkp728@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rupeshkp728@gmail.com
--- Comment #30 from RKP rupeshkp728@gmail.com --- I am also getting the same error as in comment. I am using lttng .216 on linux 2.6.33.7. I tried the solution in site https://bugs.lttng.org/issues/321 but it did not help. Any way out of this issue?
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla