https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366839
Bug ID: 1366839 Summary: Review Request: openhft-affinity - Java Thread Affinity library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: puntogil@libero.it QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/openhft-affinity.spec SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/openhft-affinity-3.0.6-1.fc24.src.rpm Description: The library will read your /proc/cpuinfo if you have one or provide one and it will determine your CPU layout. If you don't have one it will assume every CPU is on one Socket.
The library looks for isolated CPUs determined by looking at the CPUs you are not running on by default. i.e. if you have 16 CPUs but 8 of them are not available for general use (as determined by the affinity of the process on startup) it will start assigning to those CPUs. Fedora Account System Username: gil
Spring Framework 4.x (indirect) dependency
Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15242099
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366839
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |485251 (F-ExcludeArch-ARM)
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485251 [Bug 485251] ExcludeArch Tracker for ARM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366839
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |652183 (FE-JAVASIG)
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183 [Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366839
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1353905
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1353905 [Bug 1353905] CVE-2016-5007 springframework-security: spring: Path matching inconsistency [fedora-all]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366839
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1353904
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1353904 [Bug 1353904] CVE-2016-5007 springframework: spring: Path matching inconsistency [fedora-all]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366839
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1366843
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366843 [Bug 1366843] Review Request: openhft-chronicle-queue - Java library for persisted low latency messaging
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366839
--- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/openhft-affinity.spec SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/openhft-affinity-3.0.6-1.fc24.src.rpm
- disable JNI library on ARM arch https://github.com/OpenHFT/Java-Thread-Affinity/issues/32
Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15376216
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366839
Ben Rosser rosser.bjr@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rosser.bjr@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |rosser.bjr@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Ben Rosser rosser.bjr@gmail.com --- Taken.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366839
--- Comment #3 from Ben Rosser rosser.bjr@gmail.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - There are some Apache 2.0 licensed source files; the license should be appended accordingly if they're actually being built:
Java-Thread-Affinity-affinity-3.0.6/affinity/src/main/c/net_openhft_ticker_impl_JNIClock.cpp Java-Thread-Affinity-affinity-3.0.6/affinity/src/main/c/software_chronicle_enterprise_internals_impl_NativeAffinity.cpp Java-Thread-Affinity-affinity-3.0.6/affinity/src/main/c/software_chronicle_enterprise_internals_impl_NativeAffinity_MacOSX.c Java-Thread-Affinity-affinity-3.0.6/affinity/src/main/java/net/openhft/affinity/MicroJitterSampler.java
- The directory %{_libdir}/openhft-affinity is unowned; it should be owned by the main package.
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Apache (v2.0)", "LGPL", "Unknown or generated". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bjr/Programming/fedora/reviews/1366839-openhft- affinity/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/openhft-affinity [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/openhft-affinity [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. [-]: 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. [x]: 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 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 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
Java: [x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build [x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is pulled in by maven-local [x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage [x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils [x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)
Maven: [x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including metadata) even when building with ant [x]: POM files have correct Maven mapping [x]: Maven packages should use new style packaging [x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used [x]: Packages DO NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage- utils for %update_maven_depmap macro [x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun [x]: Packages use .mfiles file list instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [-]: 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. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in openhft- affinity-javadoc , openhft-affinity-test , openhft-affinity-debuginfo [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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.
Note: not a %check section but the tests get ran by maven and pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: 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.
Java: [x]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI Note: openhft-affinity subpackage is not noarch. Please verify manually [x]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.)
===== 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. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: openhft-affinity-3.0.6-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm openhft-affinity-javadoc-3.0.6-1.fc26.noarch.rpm openhft-affinity-test-3.0.6-1.fc26.noarch.rpm openhft-affinity-debuginfo-3.0.6-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm openhft-affinity-3.0.6-1.fc26.src.rpm openhft-affinity.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US proc -> crop, prov, pro openhft-affinity.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cpuinfo -> info openhft-affinity.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US startup -> start up, start-up, upstart openhft-affinity-test.noarch: W: no-documentation openhft-affinity.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US proc -> crop, prov, pro openhft-affinity.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cpuinfo -> info openhft-affinity.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US startup -> start up, start-up, upstart 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: openhft-affinity-debuginfo-3.0.6-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- openhft-affinity.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US proc -> crop, prov, pro openhft-affinity.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cpuinfo -> info openhft-affinity.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US startup -> start up, start-up, upstart openhft-affinity-test.noarch: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Requires -------- openhft-affinity (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless javapackages-tools libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libjvm.so()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) mvn(net.java.dev.jna:jna) mvn(net.java.dev.jna:jna-platform) mvn(org.jetbrains:annotations) mvn(org.slf4j:slf4j-api) rtld(GNU_HASH)
openhft-affinity-test (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless javapackages-tools mvn(com.sun:tools) mvn(net.openhft:affinity)
openhft-affinity-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): javapackages-tools
openhft-affinity-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- openhft-affinity: libCEInternals.so()(64bit) mvn(net.openhft:affinity) mvn(net.openhft:affinity:pom:) openhft-affinity openhft-affinity(x86-64) osgi(net.openhft.affinity)
openhft-affinity-test: mvn(net.openhft:affinity-test) mvn(net.openhft:affinity-test:pom:) openhft-affinity-test osgi(net.openhft.affinity-test)
openhft-affinity-javadoc: openhft-affinity-javadoc
openhft-affinity-debuginfo: openhft-affinity-debuginfo openhft-affinity-debuginfo(x86-64)
Unversioned so-files -------------------- openhft-affinity: /usr/lib64/openhft-affinity/libCEInternals.so
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/OpenHFT/Java-Thread-Affinity/archive/affinity-3.0.6.tar.g... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 27157c3242df8c4afa52a1e3f7dcd84e76398df2a9b3ec00a133dbc49b7aca56 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 27157c3242df8c4afa52a1e3f7dcd84e76398df2a9b3ec00a133dbc49b7aca56
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1366839 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Java, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Python, SugarActivity, fonts, Haskell, Ocaml, Perl, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366839
--- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- (In reply to Ben Rosser from comment #3)
Issues:
- There are some Apache 2.0 licensed source files; the license should be
appended accordingly if they're actually being built:
Java-Thread-Affinity-affinity-3.0.6/affinity/src/main/c/ net_openhft_ticker_impl_JNIClock.cpp Java-Thread-Affinity-affinity-3.0.6/affinity/src/main/c/ software_chronicle_enterprise_internals_impl_NativeAffinity.cpp Java-Thread-Affinity-affinity-3.0.6/affinity/src/main/c/ software_chronicle_enterprise_internals_impl_NativeAffinity_MacOSX.c Java-Thread-Affinity-affinity-3.0.6/affinity/src/main/java/net/openhft/ affinity/MicroJitterSampler.java
Done
- The directory %{_libdir}/openhft-affinity is unowned; it should be owned
by the main package.
Done
Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/openhft-affinity.spec SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/openhft-affinity-3.0.6-2.fc24.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366839
--- Comment #5 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- @Ben, need something else to finish the review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366839
Ben Rosser rosser.bjr@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Ben Rosser rosser.bjr@gmail.com --- Nope, sorry for the delay. Package APPROVED.
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]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Apache (v2.0)", "LGPL", "Unknown or generated". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bjr/Programming/fedora/reviews/1366839-openhft- affinity/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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. [-]: 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. [x]: 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]: 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
Java: [x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build [x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is pulled in by maven-local [x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage [x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils [x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)
Maven: [x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including metadata) even when building with ant [x]: POM files have correct Maven mapping [x]: Maven packages should use new style packaging [x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used [x]: Packages DO NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage- utils for %update_maven_depmap macro [x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun [x]: Packages use .mfiles file list instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [-]: 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. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in openhft- affinity-javadoc , openhft-affinity-test , openhft-affinity-debuginfo [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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]: 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]: 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.
Java: [x]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI Note: openhft-affinity subpackage is not noarch. Please verify manually [x]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.)
===== 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. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: openhft-affinity-3.0.6-2.fc26.x86_64.rpm openhft-affinity-javadoc-3.0.6-2.fc26.noarch.rpm openhft-affinity-test-3.0.6-2.fc26.noarch.rpm openhft-affinity-debuginfo-3.0.6-2.fc26.x86_64.rpm openhft-affinity-3.0.6-2.fc26.src.rpm openhft-affinity.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US proc -> crop, prov, pro openhft-affinity.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cpuinfo -> info openhft-affinity.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US startup -> start up, start-up, upstart openhft-affinity-test.noarch: W: no-documentation openhft-affinity.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US proc -> crop, prov, pro openhft-affinity.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cpuinfo -> info openhft-affinity.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US startup -> start up, start-up, upstart 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: openhft-affinity-debuginfo-3.0.6-2.fc26.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- openhft-affinity.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US proc -> crop, prov, pro openhft-affinity.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cpuinfo -> info openhft-affinity.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US startup -> start up, start-up, upstart openhft-affinity-test.noarch: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Requires -------- openhft-affinity (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless javapackages-tools libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libjvm.so()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) mvn(net.java.dev.jna:jna) mvn(net.java.dev.jna:jna-platform) mvn(org.jetbrains:annotations) mvn(org.slf4j:slf4j-api) rtld(GNU_HASH)
openhft-affinity-test (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless javapackages-tools mvn(com.sun:tools) mvn(net.openhft:affinity)
openhft-affinity-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): javapackages-tools
openhft-affinity-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- openhft-affinity: libCEInternals.so()(64bit) mvn(net.openhft:affinity) mvn(net.openhft:affinity:pom:) openhft-affinity openhft-affinity(x86-64) osgi(net.openhft.affinity)
openhft-affinity-test: mvn(net.openhft:affinity-test) mvn(net.openhft:affinity-test:pom:) openhft-affinity-test osgi(net.openhft.affinity-test)
openhft-affinity-javadoc: openhft-affinity-javadoc
openhft-affinity-debuginfo: openhft-affinity-debuginfo openhft-affinity-debuginfo(x86-64)
Unversioned so-files -------------------- openhft-affinity: /usr/lib64/openhft-affinity/libCEInternals.so
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/OpenHFT/Java-Thread-Affinity/archive/affinity-3.0.6.tar.g... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 27157c3242df8c4afa52a1e3f7dcd84e76398df2a9b3ec00a133dbc49b7aca56 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 27157c3242df8c4afa52a1e3f7dcd84e76398df2a9b3ec00a133dbc49b7aca56
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1366839 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Java, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Python, SugarActivity, fonts, Haskell, Ocaml, Perl, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366839
--- Comment #7 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- Thanks for the review!
create new SCM request/s: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/requests/7604 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/requests/7605
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366839
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) |
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183 [Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366839
--- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/openhft-affinity
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366839
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- openhft-affinity-3.0.6-2.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-cf544dace8
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366839
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366839
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- openhft-affinity-3.0.6-2.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-cf544dace8
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366839
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- openhft-affinity-3.0.6-2.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=1366839
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2016-09-06 14:21:54
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla