[Bug 1861887] New: Review Request: rocksdb - A Persistent Key-Value Store for Flash and RAM Storage

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1861887

            Bug ID: 1861887
           Summary: Review Request: rocksdb - A Persistent Key-Value Store
                    for Flash and RAM Storage
           Product: Fedora
           Version: rawhide
            Status: NEW
         Component: Package Review
          Assignee: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org
          Reporter: hegjon(a)gmail.com
        QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
                CC: package-review(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
    Classification: Fedora



Spec URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org//rocksdb.spec
SRPM URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org//rocksdb-6.11.4-2.fc32.src.rpm

Description:
Rocksdb is a library that forms the core building block for a fast key value
server, especially suited for storing data on flash drives. It has a
Log-Structured-Merge-Database (LSM) design with flexible trade offs between
Write-Amplification-Factor (WAF), Read-Amplification-Factor (RAF) and
Space-Amplification-Factor (SAF). It has multithreaded compaction, making it
specially suitable for storing multiple terabytes of data in a single database.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component

[Bug 1861887] Review Request: rocksdb - A Persistent Key-Value Store for Flash and RAM Storage

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1861887

Jonny Heggheim <hegjon(a)gmail.com&gt; changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Doc Type|---                         |If docs needed, set a value



--- Comment #1 from Jonny Heggheim <hegjon(a)gmail.com&gt; ---
The build fails on i686
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=48125640

I have created an issue upstream
https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/7188


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component

[Bug 1861887] Review Request: rocksdb - A Persistent Key-Value Store for Flash and RAM Storage

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1861887

Jonny Heggheim <hegjon(a)gmail.com&gt; changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Link ID|                            |Github
                   |                            |facebook/rocksdb/issues/718
                   |                            |8




-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component

[Bug 1861887] Review Request: rocksdb - A Persistent Key-Value Store for Flash and RAM Storage

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1861887

Jonny Heggheim <hegjon(a)gmail.com&gt; changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Link ID|                            |Fedora Pagure
                   |                            |releng/issue/9628




-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component

[Bug 1861887] Review Request: rocksdb - A Persistent Key-Value Store for Flash and RAM Storage

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1861887



--- Comment #2 from Jonny Heggheim <hegjon(a)gmail.com&gt; ---
RocksDB was orphaned for over 8 weeks, a new review is needed. The old review
is bug #1250025


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component

[Bug 1861887] Review Request: rocksdb - A Persistent Key-Value Store for Flash and RAM Storage

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1861887

Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 <zebob.m(a)gmail.com&gt; changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |POST
                 CC|                            |zebob.m(a)gmail.com
           Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org    |zebob.m(a)gmail.com
              Flags|                            |fedora-review+



--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 <zebob.m(a)gmail.com&gt; ---
 - %{__make} → make

Variable starting with __ are for rpm private use.

 - Add a comment above the patch to explain what it does/why it is needed

 - Rename your patch to have a meaningful name

Patch0:
https://patch-diff.githubusercontent.com/raw/facebook/rocksdb/pull/7187.p...

Package approved, please fix the aforementioned issue before import.

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
=======
- Package does not use a name that already exists.
  Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check
  https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rocksdb
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names


===== 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 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", "GNU General Public License, Version
     2", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "BSD 3-clause
"New" or
     "Revised" License", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or
later",
     "Public domain", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License",
"Apache License
     2.0". 1606 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck
     in /home/bob/packaging/review/rocksdb/review-rocksdb/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.
[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 20480 bytes in 2 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 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 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:
[-]: 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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: 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.
[-]: %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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[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.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: rocksdb-6.11.4-2.fc34.x86_64.rpm
          rocksdb-devel-6.11.4-2.fc34.x86_64.rpm
          rocksdb-debuginfo-6.11.4-2.fc34.x86_64.rpm
          rocksdb-debugsource-6.11.4-2.fc34.x86_64.rpm
          rocksdb-6.11.4-2.fc34.src.rpm
rocksdb.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multithreaded ->
multicolored
rocksdb.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/librocksdb.so.6.11.4
exit(a)GLIBC_2.2.5
rocksdb.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multithreaded ->
multicolored
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component

[Bug 1861887] Review Request: rocksdb - A Persistent Key-Value Store for Flash and RAM Storage

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1861887



--- Comment #4 from Jonny Heggheim <hegjon(a)gmail.com&gt; ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 from comment #3)
>   - %{__make} → make
>  
>  Variable starting with __ are for rpm private use.
>  
>   - Add a comment above the patch to explain what it does/why it is needed
>  
>   - Rename your patch to have a meaningful name
>  
>  Patch0:
>  https://patch-diff.githubusercontent.com/raw/facebook/rocksdb/pull/7187.
>  patch#/0001-your-fancy-name.patch
>  
>  Package approved, please fix the aforementioned issue before import. 
Thanks for the review, I will fix those issues before import.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component

[Bug 1861887] Review Request: rocksdb - A Persistent Key-Value Store for Flash and RAM Storage

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1861887

Jonny Heggheim <hegjon(a)gmail.com&gt; changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|POST                        |CLOSED
         Resolution|---                         |RAWHIDE
           Assignee|zebob.m(a)gmail.com           |hegjon(a)gmail.com
        Last Closed|                            |2020-09-03 10:32:59



--- Comment #5 from Jonny Heggheim <hegjon(a)gmail.com&gt; ---
Have fixed the issues and resurrected the package


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component