Bug 1010613

Some remarks:

- Package contains a testsuite. Please add
%check
make check

- Package fails to build on arm:
...
+ CFLAGS='-O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -grecord-gcc-switches  -march=armv7-a -mfpu=vfpv3-d16  -mfloat-abi=hard'
+ ./configure --libdir=/usr/lib --includedir=/usr/include/ck --mandir=/usr/share/man --prefix=/usr
Detecting operating system.......success [linux]
Detecting machine architecture...failed  [unsupported]
[http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5966306]


- The contents of build/ck.build.<arch> is quite questionable.
1) They try to override cpp defines from the name space reserved to the system (compiler/libc).
So far, though this isn't correct, the impact of this happens to be harmless.

2) ck.build.i386 sets -msse -msse2.
This is not allowed in Fedora.

The upstream name is "Concurrency Kit", so IMO the package should be named "concurrencykit" or "concurrency-kit". However, the tarball and git repo contain just "ck". The FPC needs to clarify the naming guidelines, as else it's not clear what "upstream name" they have in mind.

(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #2)
> The upstream name is "Concurrency Kit", so IMO the package should be named
> "concurrencykit" or "concurrency-kit". However, the tarball and git repo
> contain just "ck".
Is this meant to be a provocation, Michael?

> The FPC needs to clarify the naming guidelines, as else
> it's not clear what "upstream name" they have in mind.

From: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#General_Naming
"When naming a package, the name should match the upstream tarball or project name from which this software came."

=> Naming the package "ck" complies to this and you better stop wasting our time.

Christopher has asked me in private mail how to name the package. I've added my interpretation of the guidelines as comment 2.

(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #4)
> Christopher has asked me in private mail how to name the package. I've added
> my interpretation of the guidelines as comment 2.
Well, to me, your remark sounds like asking the "gcc" package to be renamed to "GNU-Compiler-Collection"? What you do you expect me think about you?

I know, you are not a troll nor a clueless newbie ... ?

This is off-topic in this ticket. There is a public mailing-list, which to prefer for discussions.

> Well, to me, your remark sounds like asking the "gcc" package
> to be renamed to "GNU-Compiler-Collection"?

Why would you think that? Even the project website starts with the acronym GCC. There are other examples like KDE.

> What you do you expect me think about you?
>
> I know, you are not a troll nor a clueless newbie ... ?

Keep your overly negative thoughts for yourself.

End of transmission. I'm going cycling now...

(In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #3)

Hi Ralf, can you share the patch used by yourself to me in that build?

Hi all,

I've released 0.3.1. It should have the compile issues on ARM addressed (but currently limited to armv6l, armv7l, the targets we have access to).

Thank you Christopher for your help on this. You may find various distfiles here:
 http://concurrencykit.org/releases/ck-0.3.1.tar.gz
 http://concurrencykit.org/releases/ck-0.3.1.zip
 http://concurrencykit.org/releases/ck-0.3.1.spec

Please review this one later after I update the SRPM.

ok

Rapid releasing currently, wait a moment.

Ganglia now depends on concurrency kit (for the upcoming ganglia 3.7.x release)

Updating the Ganglia packages in Fedora and EPEL will depend on this review request.

(In reply to Daniel Pocock from comment #12)
> Ganglia now depends on concurrency kit (for the upcoming ganglia 3.7.x
> release)
> 
> Updating the Ganglia packages in Fedora and EPEL will depend on this review
> request.

Just a question before updating this ticket, would you like to comaintain this library?

ping? Still going to work on this or lost interest?

(In reply to Joseph Marrero from comment #14)
> ping? Still going to work on this or lost interest?

0.0 No.

There has been discussion on the upstream mailing list about Debian, Ubuntu and Gentoo packaging:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/concurrencykit

The latest release 0.4.2 was uploaded to Debian but still had some minor issues, I'm waiting to see how 0.4.3 is.

I don't personally have time to maintain this on Fedora but as far as I know it is still a requirement to have this package for the next release of Ganglia.

(In reply to Joseph Marrero from comment #14)
> ping? Still going to work on this or lost interest?

Basically, if my package failed to pass the tests, I won't push it to the review.

In file included from ../../ck_spinlock/benchmark/latency.h:34:0,
                 from ck_cohort.c:7:
../../ck_spinlock/benchmark/../../common.h: In function 'main':
../../ck_spinlock/benchmark/../../common.h:381:9: error: PIC register clobbered by '%ebx' in 'asm'
         __asm__ __volatile__("cpuid;"
         ^
../../ck_spinlock/benchmark/../../common.h:387:9: error: PIC register clobbered by '%ebx' in 'asm'
         __asm__ __volatile__("xorl %%eax, %%eax;"
         ^
../../ck_spinlock/benchmark/../../common.h:381:9: error: PIC register clobbered by '%ebx' in 'asm'
         __asm__ __volatile__("cpuid;"
         ^
../../ck_spinlock/benchmark/../../common.h:387:9: error: PIC register clobbered by '%ebx' in 'asm'
         __asm__ __volatile__("xorl %%eax, %%eax;"
         ^
make[2]: *** [ck_cohort.LATENCY] Error 1

Hmm....You need to #include <cpuid.h> and judge the cores first. I'm sorry I dont have too much time to fix it.

OK, just checking since it was silent for almost 2 months. Let me know when the package is ready to do the review.

BTW. I will not be available until May 28 2014, so If ready before that I will start the review around that time.

I can not update any of my packages or review packages for the time being, will know If I can continue contributing in about a month. I can pass the ownership to who ever wants to maintain it or I we can share ownerships if I can still contributing. But will not know my status until august 1st is my best guess.

NEW SPEC URL: http://us-la.cicku.me/ck.spec
NEW SRPM URL: http://us-la.cicku.me/ck-0.4.3-1.fc22.src.rpm

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7233599

Use %configure macro - otherwise NAK.

Please also run scratch build on aarch64 (with arm-koji) - will hang on ck_epoch test probably (issue known by upstream) but I want to see does it build.

(In reply to Marcin Juszkiewicz from comment #22)
> Use %configure macro - otherwise NAK.

In the past it didn't support it, I will address this later.

> Please also run scratch build on aarch64 (with arm-koji) - will hang on
> ck_epoch test probably (issue known by upstream) but I want to see does it
> build.

http://arm.koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2535454

Actually it hung yesterday on ARMv7, then I scrathced a new build and succeeded.

I'm not sure if this is the right place to note this or not, but when trying to build on centos6 I get a make check failure:

rpmbuild -ba ck.spec
.........

make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/csadmin/rpmbuild/BUILD/ck-0.4.3/regressions/ck_stack/validate'

----[ Testing swlock....
make[2]: Entering directory `/home/csadmin/rpmbuild/BUILD/ck-0.4.3/regressions/ck_swlock/validate'
./validate 1 1
Creating threads (regular)....done (passed)
Creating threads (latch)....done (passed)
make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/csadmin/rpmbuild/BUILD/ck-0.4.3/regressions/ck_swlock/validate'

----[ Testing tflock....
make[2]: Entering directory `/home/csadmin/rpmbuild/BUILD/ck-0.4.3/regressions/ck_tflock/validate'
./validate 1 1
Creating threads (regular)....done (passed)
make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/csadmin/rpmbuild/BUILD/ck-0.4.3/regressions/ck_tflock/validate'

make[1]: *** [check] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/csadmin/rpmbuild/BUILD/ck-0.4.3/regressions'
make: *** [check] Error 2
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.ybPStY (%check)

NEW SPEC URL: http://cicku.me/ck.spec
NEW SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/ck-0.4.5-1.fc24.src.rpm

This is an automatic check from review-stats script.

This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry
it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software
into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the
NEEDINFO flag.

You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version
available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase
chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you
need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group.

Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned
and will be closed.
Thank you for your patience.

This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script.

The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month.
As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews
we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it.