Bug 253249
| Summary: | Review Request: classads - a powerful and flexible, semi-structured representation of data | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Matthew Farrellee <matt> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Matthew Farrellee <matt> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-package-review, notting, nsantos, steve.traylen |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | nsantos:
fedora-review+
kevin: fedora-cvs+ |
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | classads-1.0.8-1.el5 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2008-02-11 20:28:57 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
Matthew Farrellee
2007-08-17 15:40:13 UTC
"Release:" number should reflect ONLY the packaging version (IE- the first time you package= Release: 1, second = Release: 2, etc etc..). It shouldn't have anything whatsoever to do with the upstream source version. This tends to fall under naming so consult http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines Source0 URL should probably be changed to something like ftp://ftp.cs.wisc.edu/condor/classad/c++/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz I don't know that it's required, but it'll certainly save you from forgetting to bump up the version number in Source0: if you ever bump the version of the package. AFAIK, the CHANGELOG included with the source is only used to reflect changes made to the upstream source and should not be used to document changes to the package itself (nor should it be referred to by the packages %changelog section... I believe the two are to be considered mutually exclusive). I have fixed the Release Tag to be "0.1.rc2" as per the NamingGuidelines I'm going to stick with the explicit Source0 because I would not be able to properly identify the tarball using %name, %version, %release In the future, I'll properly use the %changelog section, though changes will likely also be documented in CHANGELOG New URLs... Spec: http://grid.et.redhat.com/files/classads.spec SRPM: http://grid.et.redhat.com/files/classads-1.0-0.1.rc2.src.rpm I've done a review of the SRPM provided, here are some comments:
- tarfile matches upstream with the following md5 sum:
$ md5sum classads-1.0rc2.tar.gz
d3e08a8706b0ad405048192d5f049d28 classads-1.0rc2.tar.gz
- managed to build rpms for i386:
$ sudo rpmbuild -ba classads.spec
error: Failed build dependencies:
pcre-devel is needed by classads-1.0-0.1.rc2.i386
$ rpm -qa|grep pcre
pcre-6.6-1.1
$ sudo rpmbuild -ba classads.spec --nodeps
[...]
Wrote: /usr/src/redhat/SRPMS/classads-1.0-0.1.rc2.src.rpm
Wrote: /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/i386/classads-1.0-0.1.rc2.i386.rpm
Wrote: /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/i386/classads-devel-1.0-0.1.rc2.i386.rpm
Wrote: /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/i386/classads-static-1.0-0.1.rc2.i386.rpm
Wrote: /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/i386/classads-debuginfo-1.0-0.1.rc2.i386.rpm
Note: pcre was installed but pcre-devel was not; rpmbuild still completed
successfully, so you may want to double check the need for pcre-devel.
- rpmlint gives the following output:
$ rpmlint /usr/src/redhat/SRPMS/classads-1.0-0.1.rc2.src.rpm
W: classads invalid-license Condor Public License
W: classads strange-permission classads.spec 0600
$ rpmlint /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/i386/classads-1.0-0.1.rc2.i386.rpm
W: classads invalid-license Condor Public License
$ rpmlint /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/i386/classads-devel-1.0-0.1.rc2.i386.rpm
W: classads-devel invalid-license Condor Public License
$ rpmlint /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/i386/classads-static-1.0-0.1.rc2.i386.rpm
W: classads-static invalid-license Condor Public License
$ rpmlint /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/i386/classads-debuginfo-1.0-0.1.rc2.i386.rpm
W: classads-debuginfo invalid-license Condor Public License
I understand the license issue is being worked on, the specfile permissions
should be corrected.
- checked provides of the built binary rpms:
$ rpm -qp /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/i386/classads-1.0-0.1.rc2.i386.rpm --provides
libclassad.so.0
libclassad_ns.so.0
classads = 1.0-0.1.rc2
$ rpm -qp /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/i386/classads-devel-1.0-0.1.rc2.i386.rpm --provides
classads-devel = 1.0-0.1.rc2
$ rpm -qp /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/i386/classads-static-1.0-0.1.rc2.i386.rpm --provides
classads-static = 1.0-0.1.rc2
$ rpm -qp /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/i386/classads-debuginfo-1.0-0.1.rc2.i386.rpm
--provides
libclassad.so.0.0.0.debug
libclassad_ns.so.0.0.0.debug
classads-debuginfo = 1.0-0.1.rc2
Seems the three remaining issues are dealing with the licensing, fixing the
permissions on the specfile, and confirming or removing the pcre-devel
dependency; everything else looks good.
Nuno
(In reply to comment #3) > Note: pcre was installed but pcre-devel was not; rpmbuild still completed > successfully, so you may want to double check the need for pcre-devel. The code will use POSIX regex (regcomp/regexec) if pcre is not available, and fall back to no regex support if neither is available. If this is a problem I could probably change the way configure.ac works to fail if pcre is not available, and modify the spec to require pcre during configure's run. Though it might be ok to just not specify --nodeps. I've updated the SRPM to fix the classads.spec permissions, please re-download. Just to clarify, I used --nodeps just to verify the dependency, I'm not suggesting it should be built that way. I would suggest leaving the pcre/pcre-devel dependency in, if that results in a better environment for the program/build. Just built in mock, all looks good: $ mock -r fedora-devel-i386.cfg classads-1.0-0.1.rc2.src.rpm init clean prep This may take a while create cache setup build ending done Results and/or logs in: /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-i386/result $ ls -alF /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-i386/result total 4492 drwxr-sr-x 2 nsantos mock 4096 Sep 7 18:06 ./ drwxr-sr-x 5 nsantos mock 4096 Sep 7 18:00 ../ -rw-r--r-- 1 nsantos mock 200735 Sep 7 18:06 build.log -rw-rw-r-- 1 nsantos mock 458011 Sep 7 18:06 classads-1.0-0.1.rc2.i386.rpm -rw-rw-r-- 1 nsantos mock 894714 Sep 7 18:02 classads-1.0-0.1.rc2.src.rpm -rw-rw-r-- 1 nsantos mock 2317851 Sep 7 18:06 classads-debuginfo-1.0-0.1.rc2.i386.rpm -rw-rw-r-- 1 nsantos mock 100282 Sep 7 18:06 classads-devel-1.0-0.1.rc2.i386.rpm -rw-rw-r-- 1 nsantos mock 557919 Sep 7 18:06 classads-static-1.0-0.1.rc2.i386.rpm -rw-r--r-- 1 nsantos mock 165 Sep 7 18:00 mockconfig.log -rw-r--r-- 1 nsantos mock 19295 Sep 7 18:06 root.log $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-i386/result/*.rpm W: classads invalid-license Condor Public License W: classads invalid-license Condor Public License W: classads-debuginfo invalid-license Condor Public License W: classads-devel invalid-license Condor Public License W: classads-static invalid-license Condor Public License The license issue has been resolved. Spec URL: http://grid.et.redhat.com/files/classads.spec SRPM URL: http://grid.et.redhat.com/files/classads-1.0-0.1.rc3.src.rpm Build issues on F9 resolved (gcc 4.3.0 is strict wrt headers) Test failures necessitated ExcludeArch for ppc, ppc64 and x86_64, with BZs filed that are ready to be assigned to a classads component and block relevant FE-ExcludeArch-* tickets Spec URL: http://grid.et.redhat.com/files/classads.spec SRPM URL: http://grid.et.redhat.com/files/classads-1.0-0.2.rc3.src.rpm Built the latest version: $ mock -r fedora-devel-i386.cfg classads-1.0-0.2.rc3.src.rpm init clean prep This may take a while unpack cache setup build ending done Results and/or logs in: /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-i386/result $ d /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-i386/result total 4124 drwxr-sr-x 2 nsantos mock 4096 Feb 11 11:20 ./ drwxr-sr-x 5 nsantos mock 4096 Feb 11 11:11 ../ -rw-r--r-- 1 nsantos mock 293364 Feb 11 11:20 build.log -rw-r--r-- 1 nsantos mock 447566 Feb 11 11:20 classads-1.0-0.2.rc3.i386.rpm -rw-r--r-- 1 nsantos mock 515001 Feb 11 11:15 classads-1.0-0.2.rc3.src.rpm -rw-r--r-- 1 nsantos mock 2234000 Feb 11 11:20 classads-debuginfo-1.0-0.2.rc3.i386.rpm -rw-r--r-- 1 nsantos mock 105224 Feb 11 11:20 classads-devel-1.0-0.2.rc3.i386.rpm -rw-r--r-- 1 nsantos mock 526831 Feb 11 11:20 classads-static-1.0-0.2.rc3.i386.rpm -rw-r--r-- 1 nsantos mock 165 Feb 11 11:11 mockconfig.log -rw-r--r-- 1 nsantos mock 11824 Feb 11 11:20 root.log $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-i386/result/*.rpm $ Looks good, marking as fedora-review+ New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: classads Short Description: a powerful and flexible, semi-structure representation of data Owners: matt Branches: InitialCC: Cvsextras Commits: Yes cvs done. NEEDSPONSOR removed. Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: classads New Branches: EL-4 EL-5 EL-6 Owners: matt stevetraylen I've been in touch with Matt in Bug #599144 and he is happy to co-maintain classads with me in EPEL. Steve. cvs done. classads-1.0.8-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/classads-1.0.8-1.el5 classads-1.0.8-1.el4 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 4. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/classads-1.0.8-1.el4 classads-1.0.8-1.el4 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 4 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. classads-1.0.8-1.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. |