Bug 2263333
| Summary: | Review Request: xnvme - Unified API and tools for traditional and emerging I/O interfaces | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Richard W.M. Jones <rjones> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Artur Frenszek-Iwicki <fedora> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | afaria, fedora, k.torp, package-review |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | fedora:
fedora-review+
|
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| URL: | https://github.com/OpenMPDK/xNVMe | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2024-03-23 00:39:59 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: | |||
|
Description
Richard W.M. Jones
2024-02-08 13:27:15 UTC
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7000858 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2263333-xnvme/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07000858-xnvme/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string. Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=113165356 Note that it fails to build on i686, and looking at the build logs it seems as if it has multiple issues with incorrect 64 bit assumptions. License text is not installed. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text Packaging static libraries is discouraged. Should you want to keep it, the -static package should require the -devel package, as otherwise the library headers won't be installed. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#packaging-static-libraries > %{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1.gz Do not assume man pages will be gzipped. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_manpages Spec URL: http://oirase.annexia.org/reviews/xnvme/xnvme.spec SRPM URL: http://oirase.annexia.org/reviews/xnvme/xnvme-0.7.4-2.fc39.src.rpm Description: Unified API and tools for traditional and emerging I/O interfaces Fedora Account System Username: rjones karlowich http://git.annexia.org/?p=fedora-reviews.git;a=commitdiff;h=50d1f75a8afe7185c32a5dcc9bb99880d3c3b656 * Install license text. * Make -static depend on -devel. * Tighten up man page %file patterns. * Exclude i686. Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7034310 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2263333-xnvme/srpm-builds/07034310/builder-live.log.gz Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide. - If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string. Can you reupload the SRPM, please? The link gives me HTTP 404. It's working for me, can you try again or use 'wget'? Nope. The SRPM link doesn't work for me, be it through the browser, wget, or curl. The spec link works fine. Spec URL: http://oirase.annexia.org/reviews/xnvme/xnvme.spec SRPM URL: http://oirase.annexia.org/reviews/xnvme/xnvme-0.7.4-2.fc41.src.rpm Description: Unified API and tools for traditional and emerging I/O interfaces Fedora Account System Username: rjones karlowich http://git.annexia.org/?p=fedora-reviews.git;a=commitdiff;h=50d1f75a8afe7185c32a5dcc9bb99880d3c3b656 * Install license text. * Make -static depend on -devel. * Tighten up man page %file patterns. * Exclude i686. -- Let's try this one again. I had it mind that the spec file link was broken. In fact it's the SRPM link that was broken, because I used the wrong filename. These links should now work. Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7131939 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2263333-xnvme/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07131939-xnvme/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string. Would be great if you could look into running the tests in %check. Other than that, looks good to me.
Package approved.
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
===== MUST items =====
C/C++:
[-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
Note: Sources not installed
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[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]: Package contains no static executables.
[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.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[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.
[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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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 must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[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]: Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if
present.
Note: Package has .a files: xnvme-static.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[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.
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
Note: Successfully builds in koji.
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=115084937
[!]: %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: xnvme-0.7.4-2.fc41.x86_64.rpm
xnvme-devel-0.7.4-2.fc41.x86_64.rpm
xnvme-static-0.7.4-2.fc41.x86_64.rpm
xnvme-tools-0.7.4-2.fc41.x86_64.rpm
xnvme-debuginfo-0.7.4-2.fc41.x86_64.rpm
xnvme-debugsource-0.7.4-2.fc41.x86_64.rpm
xnvme-0.7.4-2.fc41.src.rpm
============== rpmlint session starts =============
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp1h_9m_yn')]
checks: 32, packages: 7
xnvme-static.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/libxnvme.a
xnvme.src: E: spelling-error ('psync', '%description -l en_US psync -> sync, p sync')
xnvme.src: E: spelling-error ('libaio', '%description -l en_US libaio -> libation')
xnvme.src: E: spelling-error ('uring', '%description -l en_US uring -> ruing, ring, luring')
xnvme.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('psync', '%description -l en_US psync -> sync, p sync')
xnvme.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('libaio', '%description -l en_US libaio -> libation')
xnvme.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('uring', '%description -l en_US uring -> ruing, ring, luring')
xnvme-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xnvme-driver
xnvme.x86_64: W: no-documentation
xnvme-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
xnvme-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation
================ 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 7 errors, 4 warnings, 42 filtered, 7 badness; has taken 2.1 s ================
Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: xnvme-debuginfo-0.7.4-2.fc41.x86_64.rpm
xnvme-tools-debuginfo-0.7.4-2.fc41.x86_64.rpm
=================== rpmlint session starts ==================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp6r2_lubt')]
checks: 32, packages: 2
====== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 26 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 s ======
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 32, packages: 7
xnvme-static.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/libxnvme.a
xnvme.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('psync', '%description -l en_US psync -> sync, p sync')
xnvme.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('libaio', '%description -l en_US libaio -> libation')
xnvme.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('uring', '%description -l en_US uring -> ruing, ring, luring')
xnvme-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xnvme-driver
xnvme-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation
xnvme.x86_64: W: no-documentation
xnvme-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 4 warnings, 60 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 3.2 s
Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/OpenMPDK/xNVMe/releases/download/v0.7.4/xnvme-0.7.4.tar.gz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6d42d0bd7e6b395a37869a8713d138d332500f20ecc272ebf6789471026a7191
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6d42d0bd7e6b395a37869a8713d138d332500f20ecc272ebf6789471026a7191
Requires
--------
xnvme (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
libaio.so.1()(64bit)
libaio.so.1(LIBAIO_0.1)(64bit)
libaio.so.1(LIBAIO_0.4)(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
liburing.so.2()(64bit)
liburing.so.2(LIBURING_2.0)(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
xnvme-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/usr/bin/pkg-config
libxnvme.so.0()(64bit)
pkgconfig(liburing)
xnvme(x86-64)
xnvme-static (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
xnvme-devel(x86-64)
xnvme-tools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/usr/bin/bash
libaio.so.1()(64bit)
libaio.so.1(LIBAIO_0.1)(64bit)
libaio.so.1(LIBAIO_0.4)(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
liburing.so.2()(64bit)
liburing.so.2(LIBURING_2.0)(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
xnvme(x86-64)
xnvme-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
xnvme-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides
--------
xnvme:
libxnvme.so.0()(64bit)
xnvme
xnvme(x86-64)
xnvme-devel:
pkgconfig(xnvme)
xnvme-devel
xnvme-devel(x86-64)
xnvme-static:
xnvme-static
xnvme-static(x86-64)
xnvme-tools:
xnvme-tools
xnvme-tools(x86-64)
xnvme-debuginfo:
debuginfo(build-id)
libxnvme.so.0.7.4-0.7.4-2.fc41.x86_64.debug()(64bit)
xnvme-debuginfo
xnvme-debuginfo(x86-64)
xnvme-debugsource:
xnvme-debugsource
xnvme-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2263333
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Perl, R, Java, Haskell, SugarActivity, Ocaml, fonts, Python, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
I have added a %check section, but it currently does nothing: + /usr/bin/meson test -C redhat-linux-build --num-processes 12 --print-errorlogs No tests defined. The lack of documentation is also a problem. I will raise both issues upstream. Thanks for the review! The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/xnvme https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/60978 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/60979 FEDORA-2024-4af8bcdf3e (xnvme-0.7.4-2.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-4af8bcdf3e FEDORA-2024-4af8bcdf3e has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-4af8bcdf3e \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-4af8bcdf3e See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. FEDORA-2024-4af8bcdf3e (xnvme-0.7.4-2.fc40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. Upstream tracker for issues raised by this review: https://github.com/OpenMPDK/xNVMe/issues/446 |