[Bug 749291] Review Request: dpm-xrootd - xroot interface to the Disk Pool Manager (DPM)

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Sat Nov 12 21:06:06 UTC 2011

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


--- Comment #4 from Steve Traylen <steve.traylen at cern.ch> 2011-11-12 16:06:05 EST ---
Here is the review:

 +:ok, =:needs attention, -:needs fixing

MUST Items:
[-] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package.
rpmlint ./dpm-xrootd.spec 
./dpm-xrootd.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: dpm-xrootd-2.2.2.tar.gz

dpm-xrootd.src: W: invalid-url Source0: dpm-xrootd-2.2.2.tar.gz
dpm-xrootd.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US plugin -> plug in,
plug-in, plugging
dpm-xrootd.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gridFTP -> grid Ftp,
grid-ftp, griddle
dpm-xrootd.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scalable -> salable,
scalawag, scalar

plugin should be plug-in.
scalable seems not to be word... You can swap "high performance, scalable fault
for "high performance, easy to scale and fault tolerant" or something.

dpm-xrootd.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libXrdDPMXmi.so.0.0.0
_exit at GLIBC_2.2.5
dpm-xrootd.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit
/usr/lib64/libXrdDPMOfsAndN2N.so.0.0.0 _exit at GLIBC_2.2.5
You commented on this, hopefully fix one day.
dpm-xrootd.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/bin/dpm-cmsd /usr/bin/cmsd

dpm-xrootd.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/bin/dpm-manager-xrootd
dpm-xrootd.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/bin/dpm-manager-cmsd /usr/bin/cmsd
dpm-xrootd.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/bin/dpm-xrootd /usr/bin/xrootd

It's okay the 3 targets are provided by xrootd, ... but what is the point of
these symbolic

dpm-xrootd-devel.x86_64: W: no-dependency-on

Indeed dpm-xrootd-devel should contain
Requires: dpm-xrootd%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}

[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
Based on SVN moulde name.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
ASL 2.0
[-] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
The only thing anywhere to suggest a license is a GPLv3 COPYING file. The c++ 
files and headers contain a copyright from SLAC but no hint as to what the
is. Presumably you must clarify with SLAC what the license is or was.

[-] 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 must be included in %doc.
The COPYING file is included but it's unclear if that is correct.

[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[-] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL.
I think the svn checkout resolves to
svn export
which fails.

[+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one supported architecture.
Mock builds.
[+] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
Builds on all.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
[+] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro.
No locales present.
[=] MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just
symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in
%post and %postun.

Your dpm-xrootd package has these but they are not needed on the devel package.
rpmlint used to show these up.

[+] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review
Not relocatablle
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory.
[+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
[+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content. This is
described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application.
[+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[+] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[+] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
(for directory ownership and usability).
[] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in
a -devel package.
[=] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
Fails as noticed by rpmlint
[=] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be
removed in the spec.
There is a .la and a .a file, drop them.

[+] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section.
[?] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
I notice this create /var/log/xroot and xrootd creates /var/log/xrootd ... Is
that intentional?

[+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
Only needed for RHEL5.
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
[To be done] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as
[=] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
ldconfig on devel should not be there.
[=] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.
See above.
[] SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and
this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg.
A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not
installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb.
[+] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
/usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file
instead of the file itself.
[+] SHOULD: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed

Comments beyond what is above:
(1) CFLAGS do not look correct:
g++ "-DPACKAGE_NAME=\"DPM xrootd\"" -DPACKAGE_TARNAME=\"dpm-xrootd\"
-DPACKAGE_VERSION=\"0.0.0\" "-DPACKAGE_STRING=\"DPM xrootd 0.0.0\""
-DPACKAGE=\"dpm-xrootd\" -DVERSION=\"0.0.0\" -D_THREAD_SAFE=1 -D_REENTRANT=1
-D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE=1 -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -I. -I../ -I/usr/include/xrootd/
-I /usr/include/dpm -DXRDDPM_BUILDDATE=\"121111200750\" -g -O2 -MT
libXrdDPMXmi_la-XrdDPMXmi.lo -MD -MP -MF .deps/libXrdDPMXmi_la-XrdDPMXmi.Tpo -c
XrdDPMXmi.cc  -fPIC -DPIC -o .libs/libXrdDPMXmi_la-XrdDPMXmi.o

(2) Templates present but no configuration.
I presume that 
%config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/sysconfig/dpm-xrd.templ
%config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/xrd.authz.cnf.templ
%config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/xrd.dpm.cf.templ

are template files and not the live files?
Better to move or at least copy them into the used location.

(3) The devel package can drop these %doc since they are in the main
   package. On a similar node the NEWS and AUTHORS file seem

Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.

More information about the package-review mailing list