[Bug 1654324] New: Review Request: grpc - Modern, open source, high-performance remote procedure call (RPC) framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1654324
Bug ID: 1654324 Summary: Review Request: grpc - Modern, open source, high-performance remote procedure call (RPC) framework Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: sergey.avseyev@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://avsej.fedorapeople.org/grpc/0/grpc.spec SRPM URL: https://avsej.fedorapeople.org/grpc/0/grpc-1.16.1-1.fc30.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: avsej Description: gRPC is a modern open source high performance RPC framework that can run in any environment. It can efficiently connect services in and across data centers with pluggable support for load balancing, tracing, health checking and authentication. It is also applicable in last mile of distributed computing to connect devices, mobile applications and browsers to backend services.
The main usage scenarios:
* Efficiently connecting polyglot services in microservices style architecture * Connecting mobile devices, browser clients to backend services * Generating efficient client libraries
Core Features that make it awesome:
* Idiomatic client libraries in 10 languages * Highly efficient on wire and with a simple service definition framework * Bi-directional streaming with http/2 based transport * Pluggable auth, tracing, load balancing and health checking
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1654324
--- Comment #1 from Sergey Avseyev sergey.avseyev@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://avsej.fedorapeople.org/grpc/1/grpc.spec SRPM URL: https://avsej.fedorapeople.org/grpc/1/grpc-1.16.1-1.fc30.src.rpm Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=31161058
I've fixed few review warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1654324
Yanko Kaneti yaneti@declera.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |yaneti@declera.com
--- Comment #2 from Yanko Kaneti yaneti@declera.com --- Do you really need to bundle googlemock and googletest for the build? gtest is already there.
Perhaps just:
sed -i 's/^GTEST_LIB.*/GTEST_LIB = -lgflags/' Makefile
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1654324
--- Comment #3 from Sergey Avseyev sergey.avseyev@gmail.com --- Thanks, Yanko. I've fixed that
Spec URL: https://avsej.fedorapeople.org/grpc/2/grpc.spec SRPM URL: https://avsej.fedorapeople.org/grpc/2/grpc-1.16.1-1.fc30.src.rpm Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=31162668
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1654324
--- Comment #4 from Sergey Avseyev sergey.avseyev@gmail.com --- Fixed prefix in pkgconfig files
Spec URL: https://avsej.fedorapeople.org/grpc/3/grpc.spec SRPM URL: https://avsej.fedorapeople.org/grpc/3/grpc-1.16.1-1.fc30.src.rpm Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=31178025
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1654324
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com
--- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- - Be more specific here
%{_includedir}/grpc %{_includedir}/grpc++ %{_includedir}/grpcpp
- License seems to be ASL 2.0 not BSD: https://github.com/grpc/grpc/blob/master/LICENSE
- In order to avoid unintentional soname bump, it is forbidden to glob the major soname version, be more specific instead:
%{_libdir}/*.so.1* %{_libdir}/*.so.6*
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 is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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 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: [-]: 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 grpc- debuginfo , grpc-debugsource [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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: grpc-1.16.1-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm grpc-plugins-1.16.1-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm grpc-cli-1.16.1-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm grpc-devel-1.16.1-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm grpc-debuginfo-1.16.1-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm grpc-debugsource-1.16.1-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm grpc-1.16.1-1.fc30.src.rpm grpc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US microservices -> micro services, micro-services, microscopes grpc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US auth -> auto, Ruth, author grpc.x86_64: E: invalid-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib64/libgrpc++.so.1.16.1 libgrpc++.so.6 grpc.x86_64: E: invalid-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib64/libgrpc++_cronet.so.1.16.1 libgrpc++_cronet.so.6 grpc.x86_64: E: invalid-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib64/libgrpc++_error_details.so.1.16.1 libgrpc++_error_details.so.6 grpc.x86_64: E: invalid-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib64/libgrpc++_reflection.so.1.16.1 libgrpc++_reflection.so.6 grpc.x86_64: E: invalid-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib64/libgrpc++_unsecure.so.1.16.1 libgrpc++_unsecure.so.6 grpc.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl /usr/lib64/libgrpc.so.6.0.0 SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list grpc.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl /usr/lib64/libgrpc_cronet.so.6.0.0 SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list grpc.x86_64: E: invalid-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib64/libgrpcpp_channelz.so.1.16.1 libgrpcpp_channelz.so.6 grpc.x86_64: W: pem-certificate /usr/share/grpc/roots.pem grpc-plugins.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C gRPC protocol buffers compiler plugins grpc-plugins.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary grpc_cpp_plugin grpc-plugins.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary grpc_csharp_plugin grpc-plugins.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary grpc_node_plugin grpc-plugins.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary grpc_objective_c_plugin grpc-plugins.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary grpc_php_plugin grpc-plugins.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary grpc_python_plugin grpc-plugins.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary grpc_ruby_plugin grpc-cli.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C gRPC protocol buffers cli grpc-cli.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl /usr/bin/grpc_cli SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list grpc-cli.x86_64: W: no-documentation grpc-cli.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary grpc_cli grpc-devel.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C gRPC library development files grpc-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation grpc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US microservices -> micro services, micro-services, microscopes grpc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US auth -> auto, Ruth, author 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 21 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1654324
--- Comment #6 from Sergey Avseyev sergey.avseyev@gmail.com --- Thanks for review. I've fixed your notes
Spec URL: https://avsej.fedorapeople.org/grpc/4/grpc.spec SRPM URL: https://avsej.fedorapeople.org/grpc/4/grpc-1.16.1-1.fc30.src.rpm Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=31250478
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1654324
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- - Please bump to 1.17.0.
Package approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1654324
--- Comment #8 from Gwyn Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/grpc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1654324
Sergey Avseyev sergey.avseyev@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2018-12-07 03:22:51
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com