Bug 1308479
| Summary: | Review Request: chck - Collection of C utilities | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Fabio Alessandro Locati <fale> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Denis Fateyev <denis> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | denis, package-review |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | denis:
fedora-review+
|
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2016-04-13 21:34:19 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 1308480 | ||
|
Description
Fabio Alessandro Locati
2016-02-15 10:34:33 UTC
1) One of the tests fails in multi-cpu env:
$ ctest -V -j4
test 12
Start 12: thread_queue_test
12: Test command: /home/mock/sandbox/chck-79d125f14545560bd24bb437d87ee737f1ee16eb/test/thread_queue_test
12: Test timeout computed to be: 1500
test 2
Start 2: pool_test
2: Test command: /home/mock/sandbox/chck-79d125f14545560bd24bb437d87ee737f1ee16eb/test/pool_test
2: Test timeout computed to be: 1500
12: thread_queue_test: /home/mock/sandbox/chck-79d125f14545560bd24bb437d87ee737f1ee16eb/chck/thread/queue/test.c:36: destructor: Assertion `(item->a == 1 && item->c == 2) || (item->a == 2 && item->c == 1)' failed.
1/14 Test #12: thread_queue_test ................***Exception: Other 0.33 sec
2) You may request from upstream to prepare releases, it will be way more useful than the current versioning model.
1. Thanks, I'll try to fix it/report upstream. I think it's a test problem and not a library problem. 2. I've already spoken with upstream and they don't have any intent to do releases soon. > I think it's a test problem and not a library problem.
It fails not every time, but each second / third invocation.
Tested also with 2 cpus, got the same faulty results.
Hello, Sorry for the delay. I've packed a new version: SPEC: https://fale.fedorapeople.org/rpms/chck.spec SRPM: https://fale.fedorapeople.org/rpms/chck-0-1.20160406git2efd6cd.fc23.src.rpm I've tried to get a an "official" release from upstream, but they are still skeptical, but they have released 0.1 version for wlc and sway (the two packages that depend on this one), so I guess a release for chck will arrive at some point in future, but I would prefer not to wait it. As for the test problem, I'm not able to reproduce it with the current version. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [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: "Unknown or generated", "zlib/libpng". 53 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/mock/sandbox/review/1308479-chck/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/include/chck [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/include/chck [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 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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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: [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: 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 chck- debuginfo [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if 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. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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: chck-0-1.20160406git2efd6cd.fc23.x86_64.rpm chck-devel-0-1.20160406git2efd6cd.fc23.x86_64.rpm chck-debuginfo-0-1.20160406git2efd6cd.fc23.x86_64.rpm chck-0-1.20160406git2efd6cd.fc23.src.rpm chck.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1.20160406git2efd6cd ['0-1.20160406git2efd6cd.fc23', '0-1.20160406git2efd6cd'] chck.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libchck-xdg.so chck.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libchck-string.so chck.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libchck-tqueue.so chck.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libchck-atlas.so chck.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libchck-buffer.so chck.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libchck-sjis.so chck.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libchck-pool.so chck.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libchck-fs.so chck.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libchck-lut.so chck.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libchck-dl.so chck.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libchck-unicode.so chck-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib chck-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 14 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: chck-debuginfo-0-1.20160406git2efd6cd.fc23.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory chck-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib chck-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation chck.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1.20160406git2efd6cd ['0-1.20160406git2efd6cd.fc23', '0-1.20160406git2efd6cd'] chck.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libchck-fs.so chck.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libchck-atlas.so chck.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libchck-dl.so chck.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libchck-tqueue.so chck.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libchck-xdg.so chck.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libchck-unicode.so chck.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libchck-buffer.so chck.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libchck-lut.so chck.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libchck-pool.so chck.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libchck-sjis.so chck.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libchck-string.so 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 14 warnings. Requires -------- chck-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): chck-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config chck(x86-64) chck (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libchck-atlas.so.0()(64bit) libchck-buffer.so.0()(64bit) libchck-dl.so.0()(64bit) libchck-fs.so.0()(64bit) libchck-lut.so.0()(64bit) libchck-pool.so.0()(64bit) libchck-sjis.so.0()(64bit) libchck-string.so.0()(64bit) libchck-tqueue.so.0()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- chck-debuginfo: chck-debuginfo chck-debuginfo(x86-64) chck-devel: chck-devel chck-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(chck) chck: chck chck(x86-64) libchck-atlas.so.0()(64bit) libchck-buffer.so.0()(64bit) libchck-dl.so.0()(64bit) libchck-fs.so.0()(64bit) libchck-lut.so.0()(64bit) libchck-pool.so.0()(64bit) libchck-sjis.so.0()(64bit) libchck-string.so.0()(64bit) libchck-tqueue.so.0()(64bit) libchck-unicode.so.0()(64bit) libchck-xdg.so.0()(64bit) Unversioned so-files -------------------- chck: /usr/lib64/libchck-atlas.so chck: /usr/lib64/libchck-buffer.so chck: /usr/lib64/libchck-dl.so chck: /usr/lib64/libchck-fs.so chck: /usr/lib64/libchck-lut.so chck: /usr/lib64/libchck-pool.so chck: /usr/lib64/libchck-sjis.so chck: /usr/lib64/libchck-string.so chck: /usr/lib64/libchck-tqueue.so chck: /usr/lib64/libchck-unicode.so chck: /usr/lib64/libchck-xdg.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/Cloudef/chck/archive/2efd6cd314884712e9409e54c302afb9b9fff1b0.tar.gz#/chck-2efd6cd.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f7b0e6e764e74fe00fcf1f9e8e770234b25d3afd444f6b56d7376d3829ed01fc CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f7b0e6e764e74fe00fcf1f9e8e770234b25d3afd444f6b56d7376d3829ed01fc Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1308479 Buildroot used: fedora-23-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 Remarks: ------- 1) Please place unversioned .so-files into '-devel' subpackage; 2) Add "BR: make" as requested by policy (there's no BR exclude list anymore); 3) Your package needs to own `%{_includedir}/chck`. 1. Aren't we in the "When a shared library file is only provided in an unversioned format, the packager should ask upstream to consider providing a properly versioned library file. However, in such cases, if the shared library file is necessary for users to run programs linked against it, it must go into the base package." case? 2. Sorry, I don't understand what are you referring to. Can you please link me the policy where that "BR: make" is explained? 3. Thanks, I've just fixed it. SPEC: https://fale.fedorapeople.org/rpms/chck.spec SRPM: https://fale.fedorapeople.org/rpms/chck-0-1.20160407git2efd6cd.fc23.src.rpm (In reply to Fabio Alessandro Locati from comment #6) > 1. Aren't we in the "When a shared library file is only provided in an > unversioned format, the packager should ask upstream to consider providing a > properly versioned library file. However, in such cases, if the shared > library file is necessary for users to run programs linked against it, it > must go into the base package." case? No. The package already provides versioned libraries (which is the proper behavior), so it's not the case. Programs will be correctly linked against versioned libraries, so everything we need is to move unversioned links to `-devel` subpackage. > 2. Sorry, I don't understand what are you referring to. Can you please link > me the policy where that "BR: make" is explained? For example, https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/497#comment:21 which leads to the current policy on BRs (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRequires_2), and the diff between two revisions. (In reply to Fabio Alessandro Locati from comment #6) > 3. Thanks, I've just fixed it. One line %{_includedir}/chck/ instead of two lines %dir %{_includedir}/chck %{_includedir}/chck/* will be easier.. dir name will be detected and processed automagically. 1. Thanks for the clarification :) 2. Oh, ok. Sorry, I did not recognized that "BR" was meaning "BuildRequires" 3. Nice :) thanks Updated the package: SPEC: https://fale.fedorapeople.org/rpms/chck.spec SRPM: https://fale.fedorapeople.org/rpms/chck-0-1.20160408git2efd6cd.fc23.src.rpm Koji rawhide scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13595904 Better to avoid macroses in changelog: chck.src:56: W: macro-in-%changelog %{_includedir} chck.src:60: W: macro-in-%changelog %{_includedir} Otherwise the package is APPROVED. Thanks :) Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/chck chck-0-1.20160408git2efd6cd.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-ba396be891 chck-0-1.20160408git2efd6cd.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-5fb85e8fcb chck-0-1.20160408git2efd6cd.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 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-2016-5fb85e8fcb chck-0-1.20160408git2efd6cd.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 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-ba396be891 chck-0-1.20160408git2efd6cd.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. chck-0-1.20160408git2efd6cd.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. |