Hide Forgot
Spec URL: http://tstclair.fedorapeople.org/tachyon/amplab-tachyon.spec SRPM URL: http://tstclair.fedorapeople.org/tachyon/amplab-tachyon-0.4.0-3.9d66149.fc21.src.rpm Description: Reliable File Sharing at Memory Speed Across Cluster Frameworks Fedora Account System Username: tstclair
Notes in checking: Checking: amplab-tachyon-0.4.0-3.9d66149.fc21.noarch.rpm amplab-tachyon-javadoc-0.4.0-3.9d66149.fc21.noarch.rpm amplab-tachyon-0.4.0-3.9d66149.fc21.src.rpm amplab-tachyon.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib amplab-tachyon.noarch: E: non-executable-script /etc/tachyon/tachyon-env.sh 0644L /usr/bin/env ^ This is expected, and follows other packages like hadoop amplab-tachyon.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/tachyon/journal tachyon amplab-tachyon.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/tachyon/journal tachyon amplab-tachyon.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/log/tachyon tachyon amplab-tachyon.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /var/log/tachyon tachyon amplab-tachyon.noarch: W: log-files-without-logrotate /var/log/tachyon ^ on purpose amplab-tachyon.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tachyon-stop.sh amplab-tachyon.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tachyon amplab-tachyon.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tachyon-slaves.sh amplab-tachyon.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tachyon-clear-cache.sh amplab-tachyon.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tachyon-killall.sh amplab-tachyon.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tachyon-mount.sh amplab-tachyon.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tachyon-copy-dir.sh amplab-tachyon.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tachyon-start.sh amplab-tachyon.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tachyon-format.sh amplab-tachyon.src: W: strange-permission tachyon-layout.sh 0775L 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 16 warnings.
please, fix release tag for 0.4.0-SNAPSHOT should be 0.3.9d66149 or 0.3.SNAPSHOT.9d66149 and patch should be tachyon-0.4.0-SNAPSHOT-log4props.patch
updated spec: http://tstclair.fedorapeople.org/tachyon/amplab-tachyon.spec updated srpm: http://tstclair.fedorapeople.org/tachyon/amplab-tachyon-0.4.0-3.SNAPSHOT.9d66149.fc21.src.rpm
please edit changelog entries * Thu Nov 7 2013 Timothy St. Clair<tstclair@redhat.com> 0.4.0-0.3.SNAPSHOT.9d66149 - Modifications from system testing. * Mon Nov 4 2013 Timothy St. Clair<tstclair@redhat.com> 0.4.0-0.2.SNAPSHOT.9d66149 - System integration and testing. * Mon Oct 28 2013 Timothy St. Clair <tstclair@redhat.com> 0.4.0-0.1.SNAPSHOT.9d66149 there was already a discussion about it in the list of development of this misuse
updated, same URL's.
Patches accepted upstream, shifting url's to upstream. srpm: http://tstclair.fedorapeople.org/tachyon/amplab-tachyon-0.4.0-4.SNAPSHOT.515c2c8.fc21.src.rpm spec: http://tstclair.fedorapeople.org/tachyon/amplab-tachyon.spec
Please address the [!]'s below. Also, what's a good way to verify the package functions as expected? -- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /etc/tmpfiles.d/tachyon.conf See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles ===== MUST items ===== 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: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated". 21 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/1029142-amplab- tachyon/licensecheck.txt REVIEW NOTE: 21 files w/ unknown license are generated by the Thrift Compiler [X]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [X]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /var/lib/tachyon REVIEW NOTE: Assumed no need for tachyon in setup (/etc/passwd) [X]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/systemd/system, /usr/lib/systemd, /var/lib/tachyon, /etc/tmpfiles.d REVIEW NOTE: AFAIK no dep is required on systemd itself, which provides these dirs. [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. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [X]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). REVIEW COMMENT: %name and ${name} used, pick one [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. [X]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [X]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [X]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 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 %doc. [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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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 Java: [x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is pulled in by maven-local [x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage [x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils [x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink) [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]: Pom files have correct Maven mapping [x]: Maven packages should use new style packaging [x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used [x]: Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage- utils for %update_maven_depmap macro [x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun [x]: Packages use %{_mavenpomdir} instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms ===== 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). [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in amplab- tachyon-javadoc [ ]: Package functions as described. [X]: Latest version is packaged. [X]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [X]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [X]: 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. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. REVIEW COMMENT: Not present, please justify [X]: 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 (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Java: [X]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.) [x]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [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: amplab-tachyon-0.4.0-4.SNAPSHOT.515c2c8.fc21.noarch.rpm amplab-tachyon-javadoc-0.4.0-4.SNAPSHOT.515c2c8.fc21.noarch.rpm amplab-tachyon-0.4.0-4.SNAPSHOT.515c2c8.fc21.src.rpm amplab-tachyon.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib amplab-tachyon.noarch: E: non-executable-script /etc/tachyon/tachyon-env.sh 0644L /usr/bin/env REVIEW COMMENT: Ok amplab-tachyon.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/tachyon/journal tachyon amplab-tachyon.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/tachyon/journal tachyon amplab-tachyon.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/log/tachyon tachyon amplab-tachyon.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /var/log/tachyon tachyon amplab-tachyon.noarch: W: log-files-without-logrotate /var/log/tachyon REVIEW COMMENT: Ok, if you say there's no need for tachyon in setup amplab-tachyon.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tachyon-start.sh amplab-tachyon.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tachyon-stop.sh amplab-tachyon.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tachyon-slaves.sh amplab-tachyon.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tachyon-mount.sh amplab-tachyon.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tachyon amplab-tachyon.src: W: strange-permission tachyon-layout.sh 0775L REVIEW COMMENT: Please file a BZ for the missing manual pages 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 12 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint amplab-tachyon amplab-tachyon-javadoc amplab-tachyon.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib amplab-tachyon.noarch: E: non-executable-script /etc/tachyon/tachyon-env.sh 0644L /usr/bin/env amplab-tachyon.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/tachyon/journal tachyon amplab-tachyon.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/tachyon/journal tachyon amplab-tachyon.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/log/tachyon tachyon amplab-tachyon.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /var/log/tachyon tachyon amplab-tachyon.noarch: W: log-files-without-logrotate /var/log/tachyon amplab-tachyon.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tachyon-start.sh amplab-tachyon.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tachyon-stop.sh amplab-tachyon.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tachyon-slaves.sh amplab-tachyon.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tachyon-mount.sh amplab-tachyon.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tachyon 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 11 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- amplab-tachyon (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /usr/bin/env config(amplab-tachyon) java jpackage-utils mvn(commons-io:commons-io) mvn(log4j:log4j) mvn(org.apache.ant:ant) mvn(org.apache.commons:commons-lang3) mvn(org.apache.curator:curator-recipes) mvn(org.apache.hadoop:hadoop-common) mvn(org.apache.hadoop:hadoop-hdfs) mvn(org.apache.hadoop:hadoop-mapreduce-client-core) mvn(org.apache.thrift:libthrift) mvn(org.eclipse.jetty:jetty-server) mvn(org.eclipse.jetty:jetty-servlet) mvn(org.eclipse.jetty:jetty-webapp) mvn(org.glassfish.web:javax.servlet.jsp) mvn(org.slf4j:slf4j-api) mvn(org.slf4j:slf4j-log4j12) amplab-tachyon-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils Provides -------- amplab-tachyon: amplab-tachyon config(amplab-tachyon) mvn(org.tachyonproject:tachyon) amplab-tachyon-javadoc: amplab-tachyon-javadoc Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/amplab/tachyon/archive/515c2c84b3e402c723e46fcc9f2b885ca39a51b0/tachyon-0.4.0-515c2c8.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 917499a65b46a22529259c1bbbaee39641a637fe1acecbadba4ae9fe24fa9145 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 917499a65b46a22529259c1bbbaee39641a637fe1acecbadba4ae9fe24fa9145 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.0 (920221d) last change: 2013-08-30 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -b 1029142 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Java Disabled plugins: C/C++, Python, SugarActivity, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EPEL5, EXARCH, DISTTAG
In Order: >[X]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: > "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated". 21 files have unknown license. > Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/1029142-amplab- > tachyon/licensecheck.txt > REVIEW NOTE: 21 files w/ unknown license are generated by the Thrift Compiler Expected. Thrift re-generation is done due to upstream version mismatch. >[X]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/systemd/system, > /usr/lib/systemd, /var/lib/tachyon, /etc/tmpfiles.d > REVIEW NOTE: AFAIK no dep is required on systemd itself, which provides these >dirs. I don't exactly know what you are trying to say here. I adhered to the policies outlined here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Systemd >[!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). > REVIEW COMMENT: %name and ${name} used, pick one All .spec elements use either %{name} or reference variable %{shortname}. This is done b/c of namespace collision with existing packages. >[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. > Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in amplab- > tachyon-javadoc Not applicable in this space. Typically compat packages are explicitly specified in the java space. > [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. > REVIEW COMMENT: Not present, please justify This is typically not done in java packaging because (%mvn_build) by default runs the unit tests for a java package. e.g. It's not standard practice in the java space for Fedora 19 & >. (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Apache_Maven)
(In reply to Timothy St. Clair from comment #8) > In Order: > > >[X]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: > > "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated". 21 files have unknown license. > > Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/1029142-amplab- > > tachyon/licensecheck.txt > > REVIEW NOTE: 21 files w/ unknown license are generated by the Thrift Compiler > > Expected. Thrift re-generation is done due to upstream version mismatch. > > >[X]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > > Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/systemd/system, > > /usr/lib/systemd, /var/lib/tachyon, /etc/tmpfiles.d > > REVIEW NOTE: AFAIK no dep is required on systemd itself, which provides these >dirs. > > I don't exactly know what you are trying to say here. I adhered to the > policies outlined here: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Systemd Just notes to myself, or other reviewers. > >[!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). > > REVIEW COMMENT: %name and ${name} used, pick one > > All .spec elements use either %{name} or reference variable %{shortname}. > This is done b/c of namespace collision with existing packages. At least _sysconfdir shows up as %_sysconfdir and %{_sysconfdir} > >[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. > > Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in amplab- > > tachyon-javadoc > > Not applicable in this space. Typically compat packages are explicitly > specified in the java space. Ok. > > [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. > > REVIEW COMMENT: Not present, please justify > > This is typically not done in java packaging because (%mvn_build) by default > runs the unit tests for a java package. e.g. It's not standard practice in > the java space for Fedora 19 & >. > (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Apache_Maven) Ok
> At least _sysconfdir shows up as %_sysconfdir and %{_sysconfdir} Updated. Same URL's as before (no rev change).
(In reply to Timothy St. Clair from comment #10) > > At least _sysconfdir shows up as %_sysconfdir and %{_sysconfdir} > > Updated. Same URL's as before (no rev change). Ok, it looks good to me now. This is my first review in some time so I'd like some mentor help from willb to at least check my work and +1.
Looks pretty clean to me; I'll give it a +1 modulo two minor points. (1) The summary probably shouldn't be in titlecase, and (2) it would be great if you had URLs for sources 1-5 (github or fedorapeople would be fine).
Updated: same URL's Notes: --------------------------------------- ack re: 1, and updated. nack re: 2, b/c it's part of the srpm and would be in the packaging repo. Thus once accepted canonical would be fedora packaging repo. But for temporary ref, url is: https://github.com/timothysc/tachyon-rpm
I'd be happy to change #2 if there is a cited fedora policy reference.
Just make the auxiliary source tags contain URLs (these need not be permanent, canonical locators). This makes the spec file self-contained. By policy, in almost every case, source tags should contain URLs: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags (There are exceptions — for source tarballs that aren't available by direct download, or that are from revision control, or that need to be rearchived without unacceptable materials — but they don't apply in these cases.) The upstream RPM documentation also points out that "it's generally considered best to put [source tag] information in the form of a Uniform Resource Locator (URL):" http://www.rpm.org/max-rpm/s1-rpm-build-creating-spec-file.html
I'll note for the record that the existing guidelines do not address this issue — in which source tags are used essentially to provide substantial, downstream-specific patches — explicitly. If these sources were instead formulated as patches, they could live in distgit without issue. But since there is some benefit to specifying URLs for these pieces, and since there is a canonical location for them (both now and in the future), there is essentially no downside to specifying URLs in these cases. (As an example, note that thrift's package uses source URLs for downstream-specific components including the manpage, which was contributed by Debian packagers for the Debian thrift package, and POM files, which are from Maven Central.)
Updated: same URL's ack 2.
Thanks for the help willb!
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: amplab-tachyon Short Description: Reliable file sharing at memory speed across cluster frameworks Owners: tstclair Branches: f20 InitialCC: java-sig
This conflicts with tachyon package which is already in Fedora. I think you need to rename /usr/bin/tachyon to something else at least.
Updated, same URL's: (/usr/bin/tachyon -> /usr/bin/tachyon.sh) no conflicts.
Git done (by process-git-requests).
amplab-tachyon-0.4.0-4.SNAPSHOT.515c2c8.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/amplab-tachyon-0.4.0-4.SNAPSHOT.515c2c8.fc20
amplab-tachyon-0.4.0-4.SNAPSHOT.515c2c8.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository.
amplab-tachyon-0.4.0-4.SNAPSHOT.515c2c8.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.