Spec URL: rhl.fedoraproject.org/e2lsh/E2LSH.spec SRPM URL: rhl.fedoraproject.org/e2lsh/E2LSH-0.1-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: LSH is a library for Nearest Neighbors Search. Fedora Account System Username: rhl Succesful scratch builds: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6703911
Can't figure out how to edit: Spec URL: http://rhl.fedoraproject.org/e2lsh/E2LSH.spec SRPM URL: http://rhl.fedoraproject.org/e2lsh/E2LSH-0.1-1.fc20.src.rpm
http://rhl.fedorapeople.org/e2lsh/E2LSH.spec http://rhl.fedorapeople.org/e2lsh/E2LSH-0.1-1.fc20.src.rpm ok, apologies, i can't type today.
Welcome to Fedora. Please follow guidelines below to step in: 1. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers 2. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines Thanks.
Hi, Unless something changed I am definitely already a packager with Fedora. See for example: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/hoard https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/sketch I'm not sure why you think I need a sponsor. Maybe you can review this package for me. I don't think there will be any issues.
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #3) > Welcome to Fedora. > > Please follow guidelines below to step in: > > 1. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers > > 2. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines > > Thanks. Oh, I messed up 2 bugs. Sorry I can't review this package as I think it's too old. Hope you will find a reviewer soon.
What is too old? I just put it up here earlier yesterday..
Hi Ryan, I'll take the review. I just checked and your account (rhl) is indeed in the packager group. I found a number of issues with the package: - *Unless* you are planning on building this for EPEL 5, the following lines of the spec file are not actually necessary, and should be removed: rm -rf %{buildroot} defattr(-,root,root,-) - You should use %{optflags} with make. Also, %{?_smp_mflags}? make %{?_smp_mflags} CFLAGS="%{optflags}" https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags - Does this need its own E2LSH-devel subpackage to ship header files? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Devel_Packages - 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 See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 - The spec file linked to in the BZ review, and the spec file used to create your SRPM in the BZ review are different. Which one is the correct one? Please update the spec file and/or rebuild and reupload your srpm. Please do this as a new release (i.e. E2LSH-0.1-2). - rpmlint reports a unused-direct-shlib-dependency warning. There are instructions here on how to deal with that. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues?rd=PackageMaintainers/Common_Rpmlint_Issues#unused-direct-shlib-dependency - The shared library calls 'exit' in a number of places. These will need to be addressed (shared libraries shouldn't call exit). You do not have to address this yourself, but please open a ticket with upstream to discuss it and link to it both here and in a comment in the specfile. ./sources/genPlantedDS.cpp 40: exit(1); ./sources/genDS.cpp 40: exit(1); ./sources/exactNNs.cpp 107: exit(1); ./sources/LSHMain.cpp 126: exit(1); 170: exit(1); 262: exit(0); 268: exit(1); 292: exit(1); ./sources/compareOutputs.cpp 32: exit(1); ./sources/convertMNIST.cpp 24:#define ASSERT(b) { if (!(b)) {printf("Error at line %d.\n", __LINE__); exit(1);}} 136: //exit(0); ./sources/BasicDefinitions.h 124:#define FAILIF(b) {if (b) {fprintf(ERROR_OUTPUT, "FAILIF triggered on line %d, file %s. Memory allocated: %lld\n", __LINE__, __FILE__, totalAllocatedMemory); exit(1);}} 125:#define FAILIFWR(b, s) {if (b) {fprintf(ERROR_OUTPUT, "FAILIF triggered on line %d, file %s. Memory allocated: %lld\nReason: %s\n", __LINE__, __FILE__, totalAllocatedMemory, s); exit(1);}} 127:#define ASSERT(b) {if (!(b)) {fprintf(ERROR_OUTPUT, "ASSERT failed on line %d, file %s.\n", __LINE__, __FILE__); exit(1);}} 131:#define CR_ASSERT(b) {if (!(b)) {fprintf(ERROR_OUTPUT, "ASSERT failed on line %d, file %s.\n", __LINE__, __FILE__); exit(1);}} 132:#define CR_ASSERTWR(b, reason) {if (!(b)) {fprintf(ERROR_OUTPUT, "ASSERT failed on line %d, file %s.\nReason: %s.\n", __LINE__, __FILE__, reason); exit(1);}} Following is the output from fedora-review. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v3 or later)". Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/threebean/1084187-E2LSH/licensecheck.txt [!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required [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. [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. [-]: 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 276480 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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]: 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]: 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 ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [-]: 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]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: 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. [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 is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: E2LSH-0.1-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm E2LSH-0.1-1.fc20.src.rpm E2LSH.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libLSH.so.0.1 exit.5 E2LSH.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary exact E2LSH.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary genDS E2LSH.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary lsh E2LSH.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary compareOutputs E2LSH.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary genPlantedDS E2LSH.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary lsh_fromParams E2LSH.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary LSHMain E2LSH.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary exactNNs E2LSH.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary testFloat E2LSH.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary lsh_computeParams 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 11 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint E2LSH E2LSH.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libLSH.so.0.1 /lib64/libstdc++.so.6 E2LSH.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libLSH.so.0.1 /lib64/libgcc_s.so.1 E2LSH.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libLSH.so.0.1 exit.5 E2LSH.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary exact E2LSH.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary genDS E2LSH.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary lsh E2LSH.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary compareOutputs E2LSH.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary genPlantedDS E2LSH.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary lsh_fromParams E2LSH.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary LSHMain E2LSH.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary exactNNs E2LSH.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary testFloat E2LSH.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary lsh_computeParams 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 13 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/threebean/1084187-E2LSH/srpm/E2LSH.spec 2014-04-07 09:20:41.933171388 -0400 +++ /home/threebean/1084187-E2LSH/srpm-unpacked/E2LSH.spec 2014-04-03 15:03:26.000000000 -0400 @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ Name: E2LSH Version: 0.1 -Release: 2%{?dist} +Release: 1%{?dist} Summary: Library for Nearest Neighbors Search @@ -12,10 +12,5 @@ %description -E2LSH (Exact Euclidean LSH) is a package that provides a randomized solution -for the high-dimensional near neighbor problem in the Euclidean space l2. -After preprocessing the data set, E2LSH answers queries, -typically in sublinear time, with each near neighbor being -reported with a certain probability. E2LSH is based on the -Locality Sensitive Hashing (LSH) scheme. +LSH is a library for N.N. Search. %prep @@ -44,4 +39,5 @@ %files +%defattr(-,root,root,-) %{_bindir}/* %{_libdir}/lib*.so.* @@ -50,6 +46,4 @@ %changelog -* Fri Apr 04 2014 Ryan H. Lewis <me> - 0.1-2 -- a more descriptive description * Thu Apr 03 2014 Ryan H. Lewis <me> - 0.1-1 -- initial attempt, patch added to provide a shared object +- initial attempt Requires -------- E2LSH (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/bash /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- E2LSH: E2LSH E2LSH(x86-64) libLSH.so.0.1()(64bit) Source checksums ---------------- http://www.mit.edu/~andoni/E2LSH_gpl.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 39646a66414ce99347f51c9ada4d9a6308b902bae19ebe8adbf3408dae2de050 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 39646a66414ce99347f51c9ada4d9a6308b902bae19ebe8adbf3408dae2de050 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1084187 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
Ryan, I'm going to close this ticket since its been dormant for over a year now. If you still want to package this for Fedora, please to re-open it and respond to the review comments above. Thanks!