Spec URL: http://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/socket_wrapper/socket_wrapper.spec SRPM URL: http://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/socket_wrapper/socket_wrapper-1.0.0-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: socket_wrapper aims to help client/server software development teams willing to gain full functional test coverage. It makes possible to run several instances of the full software stack on the same machine and perform locally functional testing of complex network configurations. Fedora Account System Username: asn NOTE: This is a special library you load with LD_PRELOAD. There is no header file and it will not be linked against any library!
Koji build went fine: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6488651 The package looks good and works as advertised. Here is a full rpmlint output: libsocket_wrapper.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) unix -> UNIX, Unix, uni libsocket_wrapper.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libsocket_wrapper.so.0.0.1 exit.5 libsocket_wrapper.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/socket_wrapper.pc libsocket_wrapper.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libsocket_wrapper.so You might want to fix the first warning. The rest are understandable since this is a library to be dlopened, not linked against. The tarball is different from upstream, which is something that needs to be fixed. The rest is OK. I'll post a fedora-review in a separate comment.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages ---> False positive. This is understandable given the libraries are supposed to be dlopened - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/remote/jhrozek/rpmbuild/SRPMS/socket_wrapper/diff.txt See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL ---> This needs to be fixed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [X]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib64/pkgconfig(pkgconfig), /usr/lib64/cmake(cmake) ----> This allows the package to be installed even without pkgconfig or cmake [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. ----> The %cmake macro expands well [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed ----> This is OK [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package ----> This is a special package in this respect [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. [N/A]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [N/A]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [N/A]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [N/A]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [N/A]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 4 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 requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package 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 Rpmlint ------- Checking: libsocket_wrapper-1.0.0-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm socket_wrapper-1.0.0-1.fc20.src.rpm libsocket_wrapper.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) unix -> UNIX, Unix, uni libsocket_wrapper.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libsocket_wrapper.so.0.0.1 exit.5 libsocket_wrapper.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/socket_wrapper.pc libsocket_wrapper.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libsocket_wrapper.so socket_wrapper.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) unix -> UNIX, Unix, uni socket_wrapper.src: W: file-size-mismatch socket_wrapper-1.0.0.tar.gz = 37599, https://ftp.samba.org/pub/cwrap/socket_wrapper-1.0.0.tar.gz = 294751 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint libsocket_wrapper libsocket_wrapper.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) unix -> UNIX, Unix, uni libsocket_wrapper.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libsocket_wrapper.so.0.0.1 exit.5 libsocket_wrapper.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/socket_wrapper.pc libsocket_wrapper.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libsocket_wrapper.so 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- libsocket_wrapper (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig /usr/bin/pkg-config libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libsocket_wrapper.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- libsocket_wrapper: libsocket_wrapper libsocket_wrapper(x86-64) libsocket_wrapper.so.0()(64bit) pkgconfig(socket_wrapper) Unversioned so-files -------------------- libsocket_wrapper: /usr/lib64/libsocket_wrapper.so Source checksums ---------------- https://ftp.samba.org/pub/cwrap/socket_wrapper-1.0.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 68e956c0e42a7fc06db3b860cbc7e611003159d8b459c2b3069dcd73ebe71bfc CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 04e9edf59df928ebf86837df5b19f90406d46c2a93cd29860508bf6875b7e0c4 diff -r also reports differences Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --rpm-spec -n socket_wrapper-1.0.0-1.fc20.src.rpm Buildroot used: fedora-20-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
(In reply to Jakub Hrozek from comment #2) > Issues: > ======= > - Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. > Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages > ---> False positive. This is understandable given the libraries are > supposed to be dlopened If the library is never intended to be linked against, then it belongs in /usr/lib[64]/socket_wrapper/libsocket_wrapper.so
(In reply to Stephen Gallagher from comment #3) > (In reply to Jakub Hrozek from comment #2) > > > Issues: > > ======= > > - Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. > > Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. > > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages > > ---> False positive. This is understandable given the libraries are > > supposed to be dlopened > > If the library is never intended to be linked against, then it belongs in > /usr/lib[64]/socket_wrapper/libsocket_wrapper.so Probably, yeah. In that case we talked with Andreas about adding Libs to the .pc file.
Stephen, but then you cannot do LD_PRELOAD=libsocket_wrapper.so cause the dynamic linker will not find it.
(In reply to Andreas Schneider from comment #5) > Stephen, but then you cannot do LD_PRELOAD=libsocket_wrapper.so cause the > dynamic linker will not find it. You could drop a file to /etc/ld.so.conf.d/
I know, but I don't really want to do that. It would be the same as putting it to /usr/lib64
Only developers will install these libs and they will only be in BuildRequires and never in Requires :)
Hm, the last comment is a fair point. This library has no meaning on a box that is not a devel machine (or a builder, or a test box)
Spec URL: http://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/socket_wrapper/socket_wrapper.spec SRPM URL: http://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/socket_wrapper/socket_wrapper-1.0.1-1.fc20.src.rpm ChangeLog of 1.0.1: * Added --libs to pkg-config. * Added socket_wrapper-config.cmake * Fixed a bug packaging the obj directory.
Spec URL: http://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/socket_wrapper/socket_wrapper.spec SRPM URL: http://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/socket_wrapper/socket_wrapper-1.0.1-2.fc20.src.rpm * Fixed Unix typo.
Spec URL: http://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/socket_wrapper/socket_wrapper.spec SRPM URL: http://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/socket_wrapper/socket_wrapper-1.0.1-3.fc20.src.rpm - Remove Group - Remove glibc-devel build requirement - Do not create a subpackage.
Koji build succeeded: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6527004
Ping Jakub :)
Sorry for the delay, I was thinking if we need to move the library to a subdirectory of libdir as Stephen suggested. But I think it's more user-friendly if we don't so that users don't have to search for the library path to preload and can use the wrappers as suggested in the %description. So I don't have other issues with the package.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: socket_wrapper Short Description: A library passing all socket communications trough unix sockets Owners: asn Branches: f20 epel7 InitialCC: jhrozek
Git done (by process-git-requests).
socket_wrapper-1.0.1-3.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/socket_wrapper-1.0.1-3.fc20
socket_wrapper-1.0.1-3.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository.
socket_wrapper-1.0.1-3.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: socket_wrapper New Branches: el6 Owners: asn jhrozek
socket_wrapper-1.1.0-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/socket_wrapper-1.1.0-2.el6
socket_wrapper-1.1.0-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository.
socket_wrapper-1.1.0-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.