| Summary: | Review Request: dmtcp - Checkpoint/Restart functionality for Linux processes | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Neal Becker <ndbecker2> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Orion Poplawski <orion> |
| Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | dr.trigon, kapil, matt, notting, orion, package-review, pahan, rmj, tstclair |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | orion:
fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+ |
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2013-05-21 15:58:00 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
|
Description
Neal Becker
2011-10-31 23:28:56 UTC
*** Bug 676335 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** I have updated the SRPM and SPEC file to reflect the newer upstream release. Here are the URLs: Spec URL: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/kapil/fedora_rpms/dmtcp.spec SRPM URL: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/kapil/fedora_rpms/dmtcp-1.2.4-1.svn1449.fc16.src.rpm BTW, any idea on how long before this package gets accepted? Thanks, Kapil Kapil have you run through the checklist? (Do you have a sponsor, etc.) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join I think Neal is going to be the sponsor :). Neal, can you please confirm this? I am going through the checklist now. Will update once I am done. Hi Tim, While I was going through the checklist, I realized that I hadn't built the package using koji. I tried that and as it turns out, one of the tests from the dmtcp test suite fails. I tried building it locally on fedora 16 and it succeeded. But it failed, when I tried building it using koji with the following commandline: koji build --arch-override=x86_64 --scratch f17 ~/rpmbuild/SRPMS/dmtcp-1.2.4-1.fc16.src.rpm Is there a way to reproduce the failure locally so that I can debug and fix it? Thanks, Kapil PS: Here are the links to the latest SRPM and spec file: Spec URL: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/kapil/fedora_rpms/dmtcp.spec SRPM URL: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/kapil/fedora_rpms/dmtcp-1.2.4-1.fc16.src.rpm I just found the bug. I will work on it tomorrow and will post the updates here. Once you've completed a build and have everything else on the checklist completed we can see if we can get this into f17. From then on out feel free to ping folks on IRC -> distcomp #fedora-devel, I hang out there too. I have now gone through the checklist up until the part where it says to find a sponsor :) (except for the _introduce yourself_ part). The package now builds fine with koji on rawhide and f17 targets. Here are the links to the spec and srpm files: Spec URL: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/kapil/fedora_rpms/dmtcp.spec SRPM URL: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/kapil/fedora_rpms/dmtcp-1.2.4-1.fc16.src.rpm I guess, once the package is APPROVED, I can proceed towards membership sponsorship. Please let me know if I need to do anything else. Thanks. PS: Here are the links to the koji tasks for rawhide and f17, in case they are needed: f17: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3789029 rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3789015 Any updates yet?? :)h please join IRC distcomp #fedora-devel and ping for sponsor rpmlint: dmtcp-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/dmtcp-1.2.4/dmtcp/src/glibcsystem.cpp dmtcp-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/dmtcp-1.2.4/mtcp/mtcp_sigaction.c dmtcp.i686: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/bin/mtcp_restart libdmtcpaware.i686: W: one-line-command-in-%post /sbin/ldconfig libdmtcpaware.i686: W: one-line-command-in-%postun /sbin/ldconfig libmtcp.i686: W: one-line-command-in-%post /sbin/ldconfig libmtcp.i686: W: one-line-command-in-%postun /sbin/ldconfig Use: %post -p /sbin/ldconfig , and actually use /usr/sbin/ldconfig I suppose for F17+ ? libdmtcpaware-static.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) devloper -> developer, developed, overdevelop libmtcp.i686: E: shlib-with-non-pic-code /usr/lib/libmtcp.so.1.0.0 libmtcp.i686: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libmtcp.so.1.0.0 mtcp_sys_errno libmtcp.i686: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libmtcp.so.1.0.0 dmtcp_exists libmtcp.i686: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libmtcp.so.1.0.0 mtcp_sigaction_entry libmtcp.i686: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libmtcp.so.1.0.0 mtcp_dump_tls libmtcp.i686: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libmtcp.so.1.0.0 mtcp_no libmtcp.i686: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libmtcp.so.1.0.0 mtcp_readmapsline libmtcp.i686: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libmtcp.so.1.0.0 mtcp_get_thread_sysinfo libmtcp.i686: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libmtcp.so.1.0.0 mtcp_readchar libmtcp.i686: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libmtcp.so.1.0.0 mtcp_readdec libmtcp.i686: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libmtcp.so.1.0.0 mtcp_restore_argv_start_addr Missing library linkage? dmtcp.spec:8: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 8, tab: line 1) Looks like a space after Source0: That was with Kapil's latest spec, but I think we need to let Neal drive here now. Thanks Orion! I fixed the ldconfig warning, spelling error and mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs in the latest spec file along with the -fpic issue for libmtcp.so. The unresolved issues are: 1. static mtcp_restart: Unfortunately this binary has to be static :( and so we need to override that error message. 2. I don't see the undefined-non-weak-symbol warning on x64. nm on libmtcp1.so yielded no undefined symbols. May be it's specific to 32-bit. I will look into it further. 3. Finally, I don't know what to do with incorrect-fsf-address. The address listed in those files is: You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public License along with the GNU C Library; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA. */ Do you know what should I change in it? Why does mtcp_restart have to be static? We may need to apply for an exception there. The weak symbol warning was on F16 as well, which might be a difference too. As for the FSF address, that's interesting. Just recently they were publishing a newer address in their preamble, but now they just seem to mention their website, see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html mtcp_restart plays tricks with memory maps and earlier ASLR/VDSO/heap used to come in the way and the solution was to make it static. I just checked and it seems like we can get away with a non-static mtcp_restart but I need to do some wider testing to confirm. For weak symbols, I tested on F16 x86_64 and it gave no such warnings and so I will try to test it on a 32-bit fedora to find out the issue. As far as FSF address goes, the file generating errors were copied from glibc and so I am not sure if I should update the address in them, although it should be okay. Unfortunately, we do need mtcp_restart to be static so I guess we should apply for an exception. For the weak symbols, could you tell me how to reproduce the warnings? I ran the rpmlint on the 32-bit rpm and it didn't give me any such warnings. FESCO ticket https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/807 Nothing special for the weak symbols. Built locally and installed and then ran "rpmlint libmtcp" (actually, rpmlint '*mtcp*'). Link command was: gcc -shared -Wl,-soname,libmtcp.so.1 -T mtcp.t -Wl,-Map,mtcp.map \ -Wl,--no-gc-sections -Wl,--no-strip-discarded \ -o libmtcp.so.1.0.0 mtcp.o mtcp_restart_nolibc.o mtcp_maybebpt.o mtcp_printf.o mtcp_util.o mtcp _safemmap.o mtcp_safe_open.o mtcp_state.o mtcp_check_vdso.o mtcp_sigaction.o mtcp_fastckpt.o -ldl -lpthread Thanks for opening the ticket, Orion. Do I need to do anything on that ticket? Also, I will get a F16 32-bit VM and will try to reproduce the weak symbol warnings to fix them. (In reply to comment #19) > Thanks for opening the ticket, Orion. Do I need to do anything on that ticket? I'll let you know, but I don't think so. Hi Orion, Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I am juggling too many things right now :(. So, I tried building the RPMs on F16 32-bit VM using the SOURCES and using the SRPM, but I couldn't reproduce the weak symbol error. I am pasting the output from rpmlint. Please let me know how to proceed next. Kapil fedora15-i686:...rpmbuild/RPMS/i386> ls dmtcp-1.2.4-1.fc16.i386.rpm libdmtcpaware-doc-1.2.4-1.fc16.i386.rpm libmtcp-devel-1.2.4-1.fc16.i386.rpm libdmtcpaware-1.2.4-1.fc16.i386.rpm libdmtcpaware-static-1.2.4-1.fc16.i386.rpm libdmtcpaware-devel-1.2.4-1.fc16.i386.rpm libmtcp-1.2.4-1.fc16.i386.rpm fedora15-i686:...rpmbuild/RPMS/i386> rpmlint * dmtcp.i386: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US dmtcp.i386: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog apil.edu ['1.2.4-1.fc16', '1.2.4-1'] dmtcp.i386: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/dmtcp_coordinator dmtcp.i386: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/dmtcp_restart dmtcp.i386: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/dmtcp_checkpoint dmtcp.i386: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/mtcp_restart dmtcp.i386: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/bin/mtcp_restart dmtcp.i386: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/dmtcp_command dmtcp.i386: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/dmtcp/dmtcphijack.so dmtcp.i386: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/dmtcp_nocheckpoint dmtcp.i386: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/dmtcp_inspector libdmtcpaware.i386: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/libdmtcpaware.so.1.0.0 libdmtcpaware.i386: W: no-documentation libdmtcpaware-devel.i386: W: no-documentation libdmtcpaware-static.i386: W: no-documentation libmtcp.i386: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/libmtcp.so.1.0.0 libmtcp.i386: E: shlib-with-non-pic-code /usr/lib/libmtcp.so.1.0.0 libmtcp.i386: W: no-documentation libmtcp-devel.i386: W: no-documentation 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 16 warnings. Hi guys, Any updates on the packaging :). Also, I am wondering if there are any chances to getting dmtcp into f17 or is it too late? Kapil - You need to install the rpms and then run rpmlint on the installed package names. There are some tests rpmlint can only perform on installed packages. Hi Orin, I tried rpmlint on installed package and it did emit the warnings, however, I did a nm on libmtcp.so and it says all symbols are present: fedora16-x64:~> nm /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/libmtcp.so.debug|grep "dmtcp_exists\|mtcp_sys_errno\|mtcp_sigaction_entry\|mtcp_restore_argv_start_addr\|mtcp_dump_tls\|mtcp_readchar\|mtcp_readmapsline\|mtcp_get_thread_sysinfo\|mtcp_readdec\|mtcp_no" 0000000000215f88 B dmtcp_exists 00000000000034f1 T mtcp_dump_tls 00000000000102bb T mtcp_get_thread_sysinfo 000000000000439f T mtcp_no 000000000000ecaa T mtcp_readchar 000000000000eba9 T mtcp_readdec 00000000000096bd T mtcp_readmapsline 0000000000215f90 B mtcp_restore_argv_start_addr 0000000000222780 B mtcp_sigaction_entry 0000000000224f58 B mtcp_sys_errno Now, I am not sure, how to fix the undefined symbol warning :(. Can you help me out? I don't really know what is going on here. Perhaps this: libmtcp.i686: E: shlib-with-non-pic-code /usr/lib/libmtcp.so.1.0.0 is coming into play as well. # rpmlint -I shlib-with-non-pic-code shlib-with-non-pic-code: The listed shared libraries contain object code that was compiled without -fPIC. All object code in shared libraries should be recompiled separately from the static libraries with the -fPIC option. Another common mistake that causes this problem is linking with ``gcc -Wl,-shared'' instead of ``gcc -shared''. Hi All, We were finally able to resolve the issues with fPIC and missing symbols. Here are the links to the latest SPEC and SRPM: Spec URL: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/kapil/fedora_rpms/dmtcp.spec SRPM URL: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/kapil/fedora_rpms/dmtcp-1.2.4-1.svn1608.fc16.src.rpm Thanks! Any updates on this front? Hi All, I have updated the package to upstream release 1.2.5. Here are the links to the latest SPEC and SRPM: Spec URL: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/kapil/fedora_rpms/dmtcp.spec SRPM URL: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/kapil/fedora_rpms/dmtcp-1.2.5-1.fc16.src.rpm How long before it is merged into Fedora? Thanks. Fails for me for Fedora 17 i386:
gcc -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer
-size=4 -m32 -march=i686 -mtune=atom -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -O0 -g -DUSE_PROC_MAPS -DDMT
CP_VERSION=\"1.2.5\" -fPIC -DPIC -fno-stack-protector -static -nodefaultlibs \
-o mtcp_restart mtcp_restart.c mtcp_maybebpt.o \
mtcp_printf.o mtcp_util.o mtcp_safemmap.o \
mtcp_state.o mtcp_safe_open.o \
mtcp_check_vdso.o mtcp_fastckpt.o
In file included from /usr/include/unistd.h:26:0,
from mtcp_restart.c:38:
/usr/include/features.h:314:4: warning: #warning _FORTIFY_SOURCE requires compiling with optimiz
ation (-O) [-Wcpp]
In file included from mtcp_internal.h:141:0,
from mtcp_restart.c:50:
mtcp_sys.h:322:1: warning: multi-line comment [-Wcomment]
/tmp/cc904UNz.o: In function `main':
/export/home/orion/redhat/dmtcp-1.2.5/dmtcp-1.2.5/mtcp/mtcp_restart.c:351: undefined reference t
o `_Unwind_Resume'
/tmp/cc904UNz.o: In function `first_char':
/export/home/orion/redhat/dmtcp-1.2.5/dmtcp-1.2.5/mtcp/mtcp_restart.c:407: undefined reference t
o `_Unwind_Resume'
/tmp/cc904UNz.o: In function `open_ckpt_to_read':
/export/home/orion/redhat/dmtcp-1.2.5/dmtcp-1.2.5/mtcp/mtcp_restart.c:512: undefined reference t
o `_Unwind_Resume'
/tmp/cc904UNz.o:(.data.DW.ref.__gcc_personality_v0[DW.ref.__gcc_personality_v0]+0x0): undefined
reference to `__gcc_personality_v0'
mtcp_maybebpt.o: In function `mtcp_maybebpt':
/export/home/orion/redhat/dmtcp-1.2.5/dmtcp-1.2.5/mtcp/mtcp_maybebpt.c:78: undefined reference t
o `_Unwind_Resume'
/export/home/orion/redhat/dmtcp-1.2.5/dmtcp-1.2.5/mtcp/mtcp_maybebpt.c:78: undefined reference t
o `__stack_chk_fail_local'
mtcp_printf.o: In function `mtcp_printf':
/export/home/orion/redhat/dmtcp-1.2.5/dmtcp-1.2.5/mtcp/mtcp_printf.c:208: undefined reference to
`_Unwind_Resume'
mtcp_util.o: In function `mtcp_readcs':
/export/home/orion/redhat/dmtcp-1.2.5/dmtcp-1.2.5/mtcp/mtcp_util.c:308: undefined reference to `
_Unwind_Resume'
mtcp_util.o: In function `mtcp_get_memory_region_of_this_library':
/export/home/orion/redhat/dmtcp-1.2.5/dmtcp-1.2.5/mtcp/mtcp_util.c:515: undefined reference to `
_Unwind_Resume'
mtcp_safemmap.o: In function `mtcp_safemmap':
/export/home/orion/redhat/dmtcp-1.2.5/dmtcp-1.2.5/mtcp/mtcp_safemmap.c:74: undefined reference t
o `_Unwind_Resume'
mtcp_check_vdso.o: In function `write_args':
/export/home/orion/redhat/dmtcp-1.2.5/dmtcp-1.2.5/mtcp/mtcp_check_vdso.c:221: undefined referenc
e to `_Unwind_Resume'
mtcp_check_vdso.o:/export/home/orion/redhat/dmtcp-1.2.5/dmtcp-1.2.5/mtcp/mtcp_check_vdso.c:360:
more undefined references to `_Unwind_Resume' follow
/usr/bin/ld: mtcp_restart: hidden symbol `__stack_chk_fail_local' isn't defined
/usr/bin/ld: final link failed: Bad value
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
make[1]: *** [mtcp_restart] Error 1
Building in mock in rawhide I get:
+ sed -i -e s/enable_option_checking=fatal/enable_option_checking=no/ configure.ac
+ aclocal
/var/tmp/rpm-tmp.eX1IeL: line 35: aclocal: command not found
Hi Orion,
Thanks for the review. Sorry, it took longer to fix things and get back to you but here I am now :).
Earlier, I didn't upgrade my VMs and that's why you saw those issues. I have now updated to F17 and fixed the issues in dmtcp svn. However, I ran into a different issue when building for ix86 architecture.
During compilation, I got the following error:
g++ -fPIC -O2 -g -march=i386 -mtune=i686 -fPIC -o dmtcp_command dmtcp_command.o libdmtcpinternal.a libjalib.a libnohijack.a -lpthread
dmtcp_checkpoint.o: In function `__exchange_and_add':
/usr/lib/gcc/i686-redhat-linux/4.7.0/../../../../include/c++/4.7.0/ext/atomicity.h:48: undefined reference to `__atomic_fetch_add_4'
....
<similar lines followed>
It turns out that rpmbuild defines -march=i386 and -mtune=i686 causing the compilation errors. Here is the reason:
fedora17-i686:~> rpm --eval '%configure -g -O0'
CFLAGS="${CFLAGS:--O2 -g -march=i386 -mtune=i686}" ; export CFLAGS ;
CXXFLAGS="${CXXFLAGS:--O2 -g -march=i386 -mtune=i686}" ; export CXXFLAGS ;
FFLAGS="${FFLAGS:--O2 -g -march=i386 -mtune=i686}" ; export FFLAGS ;
./configure --host=i686-pc-linux-gnu --build=i686-pc-linux-gnu \
--program-prefix= \
--prefix=/usr \
--exec-prefix=/usr \
--bindir=/usr/bin \
--sbindir=/usr/sbin \
--sysconfdir=/etc \
--datadir=/usr/share \
--includedir=/usr/include \
--libdir=/usr/lib \
--libexecdir=/usr/libexec \
--localstatedir=/var \
--sharedstatedir=/var/lib \
--mandir=/usr/share/man \
--infodir=/usr/share/info -g -O0
If I replace i386 with i486 or higher in CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS/FFLAGS, the compilation error goes away. Is there a simple way to achieve it? Of course I can conditionalize using %ifarch ix86 and modify the %configure section but I am wondering if there is a simpler way to avoid this.
My turn to apologize for taking too long to get back to this. I upgraded to 1.2.6. Found one issue which I filed here: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=3575787&group_id=194616&atid=950143 Builds fine for me on Fedora 17 i686 and Rawhide x86_64. Note new changelog format - should fix old entries. Also, don't put the release notes in the changelog. * Tue Oct 09 2012 Orion Poplawski <orion.com> - 1.2.6-1 - Update to 1.2.6 - Use URL for Source0 - Add patch to drop -fstack-protector on mtcp_maybebpt.c - Drop configure hack - Run tests http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/dmtcp-1.2.6-1.fc17.src.rpm Also, fails on EL6 because %doc stomps on examples: File not found: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/dmtcp-1.2.6-1.el6.x86_64/usr/share/doc/dmtcp-1.2.6/examples Hi Orion, > My turn to apologize for taking too long to get back to this. I upgraded to > 1.2.6. Found one issue which I filed here: > > https://sourceforge.net/tracker/ > ?func=detail&aid=3575787&group_id=194616&atid=950143 I will take a look and make the fixes upstream as well. > Builds fine for me on Fedora 17 i686 and Rawhide x86_64. > > Note new changelog format - should fix old entries. Also, don't put the > release notes in the changelog. Will do > * Tue Oct 09 2012 Orion Poplawski <orion.com> - 1.2.6-1 > - Update to 1.2.6 > - Use URL for Source0 > - Add patch to drop -fstack-protector on mtcp_maybebpt.c > - Drop configure hack > - Run tests > > http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/dmtcp-1.2.6-1.fc17.src.rpm > > Also, fails on EL6 because %doc stomps on examples: > > File not found: > /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/dmtcp-1.2.6-1.el6.x86_64/usr/share/doc/dmtcp-1.2.6/ > examples Will do. I will address these issues and will put the updated package here. Thanks again! Looks like libmtcp should be required explicitly by the main dmtcp package. Any progress on fixing the EL6 issue from comment #32? I'd like to build this package on EL6. I tried rebuilding the srpm at: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/dmtcp-1.2.6-1.fc17.src.rpm on Scientific Linux 6.3 and I'm seeing this failure from the tests section (as well as the doc issue mentioned above): openmp-1 FAILED root-pids: [2201] msg: user program startup error, 1 expected, 0 found, running=0 Any idea what the problem might be? Thanks. Kapil - Any progress here? I've been using the dmtcp packages here with reasonable success. Also, looks like openmpi 1.7 supports dmtcp, so it would be nice to get this into Fedora so it can build against it. Hi Orion, I had fixed the problem related to make check in the svn and it has been part of the 1.2.7 release. I created the srpm package for 1.2.7 but forgot to put it here. Let me recreate the package and I will put out the link here this week. Thanks for reminding, it just slipped off my mind. Kapil Hi Orion, Here are the links to the SRPM and SPEC file for DMTCP 1.2.7: Spec URL: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/kapil/fedora_rpms/dmtcp.spec SRPM URL: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/kapil/fedora_rpms/dmtcp-1.2.7-1.fc19.src.rpm Please let me know if you find any problems with this packaging. Thanks, Kapil Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /export/home/orion/redhat/dmtcp-1.3.0/750394-dmtcp/diff.txt See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: These BR are not needed: gcc gcc-c++ glibc-devel See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 - No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libmtcp , libmtcp-devel , libdmtcpaware , libdmtcpaware-devel , libdmtcpaware-doc , libdmtcpaware-static - you must specify "%{version}-%{release}" Minor: - I would suggest a blank line between changelog entries. - Drop %defattr() - Drop BuildRoot - Drop %clean ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [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. [x]: Static libraries in -static 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]: %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. [!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libmtcp , libmtcp-devel , libdmtcpaware , libdmtcpaware-devel , libdmtcpaware-doc , libdmtcpaware-static [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "LGPL (v3 or later)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or generated". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /export/home/orion/redhat/dmtcp-1.3.0/750394-dmtcp/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (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]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 2 files. [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]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [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 %doc. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [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 [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). ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot: present but not needed [!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: %clean present but not required [-]: 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]: 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. [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Uses parallel make. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- dmtcpaware libdmtcpaware-docl libmtcp-devel libmtcp libdmtcpaware-static dmtcp lib libdmtcpaware-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US checkpointing -> check pointing, check-pointing, checkpoint libdmtcpaware-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti libdmtcpaware-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cscope -> scope, c scope, cs cope libdmtcpaware-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US emacs -> Emacs, macs, maces libdmtcpaware-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dmtcp -> Dmitri libdmtcpaware-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libmtcp-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libmtcp.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) checkpointer -> check pointer, check-pointer, checkpoint er libmtcp.x86_64: W: no-documentation libdmtcpaware-static.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dmtcpaware -> Delaware libdmtcpaware-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation dmtcp.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US checkpointing -> check pointing, check-pointing, checkpoint dmtcp.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti dmtcp.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cscope -> scope, c scope, cs cope dmtcp.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US emacs -> Emacs, macs, maces dmtcp.x86_64: W: ldd-failed /usr/bin/mtcp_restart dmtcp.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/bin/mtcp_restart libdmtcpaware.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US checkpointing -> check pointing, check-pointing, checkpoint libdmtcpaware.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti libdmtcpaware.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cscope -> scope, c scope, cs cope libdmtcpaware.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US emacs -> Emacs, macs, maces libdmtcpaware.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US checkpointed -> check pointed, check-pointed, checkpoint ed libdmtcpaware.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dmtcp -> Dmitri libdmtcpaware.x86_64: W: no-documentation libdmtcpaware-doc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dmtcpaware -> Delaware 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 24 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' These are all fine. Requires -------- libdmtcpaware-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libdmtcpaware(x86-64) libdmtcpaware.so.1()(64bit) libmtcp-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libmtcp libmtcp.so.1()(64bit) libmtcp (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libdmtcpaware-static (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libdmtcpaware-devel(x86-64) dmtcp (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libmtcp libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libdmtcpaware (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig dmtcp(x86-64) libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libdmtcpaware-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libdmtcpaware-devel(x86-64) Provides -------- libdmtcpaware-devel: libdmtcpaware-devel libdmtcpaware-devel(x86-64) libmtcp-devel: libmtcp-devel libmtcp-devel(x86-64) libmtcp: libmtcp libmtcp(x86-64) libmtcp.so.1()(64bit) libdmtcpaware-static: libdmtcpaware-static libdmtcpaware-static(x86-64) dmtcp: dmtcp dmtcp(x86-64) dmtcphijack.so()(64bit) libdmtcpaware: libdmtcpaware libdmtcpaware(x86-64) libdmtcpaware.so.1()(64bit) libdmtcpaware-doc: libdmtcpaware-doc libdmtcpaware-doc(x86-64) Unversioned so-files -------------------- dmtcp: /usr/lib64/dmtcp/dmtcphijack.so MD5-sum check ------------- http://downloads.sourceforge.net/dmtcp/dmtcp-1.2.7.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ce9ad548dd7d627120b6516a7c0e2f304c6eacaf2b17da13d8b0f5ea8d882f71 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a5e1be2854787b7da78a7871b1b68886d5c42e431221110fe0a94a91256dfc4d diff -r also reports differences Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (660ce56) last change: 2013-01-29 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 750394 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Hi Orion, Thanks for the quick response. I am putting my responses inline. Also, could you tell me how did you generate this report so that I can do it locally and fix issues before sending it to you? Thanks, Kapil > Issues: > ======= > - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in > the spec URL. > Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in > /export/home/orion/redhat/dmtcp-1.3.0/750394-dmtcp/diff.txt > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL That was a stupid mistake on my end. Fixed. > - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are > listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. > Note: These BR are not needed: gcc gcc-c++ glibc-devel > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 Fixed~ > - No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libmtcp , > libmtcp-devel , libdmtcpaware , libdmtcpaware-devel , libdmtcpaware-doc > , > libdmtcpaware-static - you must specify "%{version}-%{release}" Here is slight confusion. libmtcp provides a shared library that is needed by the main package. libmtcp does not depend on the main package itself. How should I fix the "Requires" section for libmtcp in this case? > Minor: > > - I would suggest a blank line between changelog entries. > - Drop %defattr() > - Drop BuildRoot > - Drop %clean Fixed. (In reply to comment #39) > Also, could you tell me how did you generate this report so that I can do it > locally and fix issues before sending it to you? The fedora-review package/command. > > Issues: > > ======= > > No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libmtcp , > > libmtcp-devel , libdmtcpaware , libdmtcpaware-devel , libdmtcpaware-doc > > , > > libdmtcpaware-static - you must specify "%{version}-%{release}" > > Here is slight confusion. libmtcp provides a shared library that is needed > by the main package. libmtcp does not depend on the main package itself. How > should I fix the "Requires" section for libmtcp in this case? It's find to leave out the requires on the main package in libmtcp in that case. You'll need: Requires: libmtcp%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in the main package. Ping? Hi Orion, The updated URLs are: Spec URL: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/kapil/fedora_rpms/dmtcp.spec SRPM URL: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/kapil/fedora_rpms/dmtcp-1.2.7-1.fc20.src.rpm I have fixed most of the problems. There are some Issues related to Java that I have no idea how to fix. Also, I did insert the "Requires: ..." in the specfile but fedora-review is still complaining. Here is the output from fedora-review: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java - Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink) Note: No javadoc subpackage present See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation - Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. Note: Missing: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} in libmtcp, libmtcp-devel, libdmtcpaware, libdmtcpaware-devel, libdmtcpaware-doc, libdmtcpaware-static See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#RequiringBasePackage - Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage Note: No javadoc subpackage present See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [ ]: Package contains no static executables. [ ]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [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. [x]: Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present. Generic: [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libmtcp , libmtcp-devel , libdmtcpaware , libdmtcpaware-devel , libdmtcpaware-doc , libdmtcpaware-static [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "LGPL (v3 or later)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)". 89 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/kapil/rpmbuild/SRPMS/dmtcp/licensecheck.txt [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 2 files. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [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 %doc. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [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 [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). Java: [x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build Maven: [ ]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when building with ant [x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used ===== 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. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Uses parallel make. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. Java: [ ]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI Note: dmtcp subpackage is not noarch. Please verify manually [ ]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.) ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: dmtcp-1.2.7-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm libmtcp-1.2.7-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm libmtcp-devel-1.2.7-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm libdmtcpaware-1.2.7-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm libdmtcpaware-devel-1.2.7-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm libdmtcpaware-doc-1.2.7-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm libdmtcpaware-static-1.2.7-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm dmtcp.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US checkpointing -> check pointing, check-pointing, checkpoint dmtcp.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti dmtcp.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cscope -> scope, c scope, cs cope dmtcp.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US emacs -> Emacs, macs, maces dmtcp.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/bin/mtcp_restart libmtcp.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) checkpointer -> check pointer, check-pointer, checkpoint er libmtcp.x86_64: W: no-documentation libmtcp-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libdmtcpaware.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US checkpointing -> check pointing, check-pointing, checkpoint libdmtcpaware.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti libdmtcpaware.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cscope -> scope, c scope, cs cope libdmtcpaware.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US emacs -> Emacs, macs, maces libdmtcpaware.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US checkpointed -> check pointed, check-pointed, checkpoint ed libdmtcpaware.x86_64: W: no-documentation libdmtcpaware-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US checkpointing -> check pointing, check-pointing, checkpoint libdmtcpaware-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti libdmtcpaware-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cscope -> scope, c scope, cs cope libdmtcpaware-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US emacs -> Emacs, macs, maces libdmtcpaware-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libdmtcpaware-doc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dmtcpaware -> Delaware libdmtcpaware-static.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dmtcpaware -> Delaware libdmtcpaware-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 21 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- mtcp libdmtcpaware libdmtcpaware-docp-devel libmtcp libdmtcpaware-static d libdmtcpaware-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US checkpointing -> check pointing, check-pointing, checkpoint libdmtcpaware-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti libdmtcpaware-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cscope -> scope, c scope, cs cope libdmtcpaware-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US emacs -> Emacs, macs, maces libdmtcpaware-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dmtcp -> Dmitri libdmtcpaware-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libmtcp-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libmtcp.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) checkpointer -> check pointer, check-pointer, checkpoint er libmtcp.x86_64: W: no-documentation libdmtcpaware-static.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dmtcpaware -> Delaware libdmtcpaware-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation dmtcp.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US checkpointing -> check pointing, check-pointing, checkpoint dmtcp.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti dmtcp.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cscope -> scope, c scope, cs cope dmtcp.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US emacs -> Emacs, macs, maces dmtcp.x86_64: W: ldd-failed /usr/bin/mtcp_restart dmtcp.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/bin/mtcp_restart libdmtcpaware.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US checkpointing -> check pointing, check-pointing, checkpoint libdmtcpaware.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti libdmtcpaware.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cscope -> scope, c scope, cs cope libdmtcpaware.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US emacs -> Emacs, macs, maces libdmtcpaware.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US checkpointed -> check pointed, check-pointed, checkpoint ed libdmtcpaware.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dmtcp -> Dmitri libdmtcpaware.x86_64: W: no-documentation libdmtcpaware-doc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dmtcpaware -> Delaware 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 24 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- libdmtcpaware-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): dmtcp libdmtcpaware(x86-64) libdmtcpaware.so.1()(64bit) libmtcp-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libmtcp libmtcp.so.1()(64bit) libmtcp (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libdmtcpaware-static (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): dmtcp libdmtcpaware-devel(x86-64) dmtcp (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libmtcp(x86-64) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libdmtcpaware (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig dmtcp libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libdmtcpaware-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): dmtcp libdmtcpaware-devel(x86-64) Provides -------- libdmtcpaware-devel: libdmtcpaware-devel libdmtcpaware-devel(x86-64) libmtcp-devel: libmtcp-devel libmtcp-devel(x86-64) libmtcp: libmtcp libmtcp(x86-64) libmtcp.so.1()(64bit) libdmtcpaware-static: libdmtcpaware-static libdmtcpaware-static(x86-64) dmtcp: dmtcp dmtcp(x86-64) dmtcphijack.so()(64bit) libdmtcpaware: libdmtcpaware libdmtcpaware(x86-64) libdmtcpaware.so.1()(64bit) libdmtcpaware-doc: libdmtcpaware-doc libdmtcpaware-doc(x86-64) Unversioned so-files -------------------- dmtcp: /usr/lib64/dmtcp/dmtcphijack.so Source checksums ---------------- http://downloads.sourceforge.net/dmtcp/dmtcp-1.2.7.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a5e1be2854787b7da78a7871b1b68886d5c42e431221110fe0a94a91256dfc4d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a5e1be2854787b7da78a7871b1b68886d5c42e431221110fe0a94a91256dfc4d Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29 Buildroot used: fedora-18-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --rpm-spec -n dmtcp-1.2.7-1.fc20.src.rpm You can ignore the java stuff - fedora-review is thinking this is a java package - but you just have some java tests.
Not sure why fedora-review is complaining about the missing requires on the base package, although they should be:
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
I'll leave that to you to do, but for now this is approved.
Hi Orion,
Thanks for the quick reply. I have now updated the specfile to include:
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
Now that this is approved, what are the next steps?
Great. I will go over these steps and will right back if I have any questions :-). New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: dmtcp Short Description: Checkpoint/Restart functionality for Linux processes Owners: karya0 Branches: f19 el6 InitialCC: Hi Orion, Since I am not a member of the fedorabugs group, I can't set the fedora‑cvs flag. Could you please set the flag? Thanks, Kapil Kapil - I have now sponsored you, so you should be able to set the CVS flag now (or soon). Thanks a lot Orion! Hi Orion, I am sorry to bother you once again. Apparently, I still can't change the fedora_cvs flag. Looks like there is some syncing issue between bugzilla and my fedora account. Both of them have the same email address. Although my PGP key has an extra email address, I don't think that should be an issue here. Do you have any ideas? Thanks, Kapil Git done (by process-git-requests). The package has been pushed to the git module now (after successful 'fedpkg build' on each branch). Closing the ticket now. I wish to thank everyone for all the help in creating this fedora package! :-) Kapil Great. Don't forget to submit updates for F19 and EL6. Just submitted to update-testing for both F19 and EL6. Just installed it (1.2.7) in F19 from repos and started it with an "old" process checkpointed in self-compiled 1.2.6 (under F17) and it work like a charm!!! :) THANKS A LOT TO EVERYBODY INVOLVED HERE AND WORKING ON THIS - NICE JOB!! ;)) Greetings |