Spec URL: http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/classads-1.0.10-1/classads.spec SRPM URL: http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/classads-1.0.10-1/classads-1.0.10-1.fc22.src.rpm Description: Classified Advertisements (classads) are the lingua franca of Condor. They are used for describing jobs, workstations, and other resources. They are exchanged by Condor processes to schedule jobs. They are logged to files for statistical and debugging purposes. They are used to enquire about current state of the system. Fedora Account System Username: valtri * intended for EPEL 5, EPEL 6 and EPEL 7 branches * this is re-review for retired package (some packages has been removed during pkgdb cleanups: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/epel-devel/2014-September/010205.html) * koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7740119
I'll review this. Look for a full review later today.
So, looking at this, I see that in Fedora the condor package provides a condor-classads subpackage. Is that the same as this? Are there plans to bring condor to epel? If so, should it just be provided by the subpackage? Or are there things that depend on this package as is?
Yes, the condor provides the newer version of this classads library. There are already some external projects depending on libclassad.so.1 for EPEL 5 and EPEL6 (eu-emi.eu and egi.eu). Existing packages in EPEL 5 and 6 could be easily rebuilt, but it would be probably better to return this package as it was for EPEL 5 & 6 (using slightly newer version - classads 1.0.10). For EPEL 7, it may be more complicated: On Mon, 2014-09-29 at 13:28 -0500, Brian Bockelman wrote: > Putting the condor RPM itself into EPEL was previously shot down because > RedHat sold an overlapping product (RHEL MRG) which also provided HTCondor. > If my fading, unreliable memory serves, this was some sort of EPEL policy > (the intersection of the EPEL and RH repos should be the null set). I'm not sure how strict are the policies, but koji doesn't know anything about classads/condor-classads in EPEL 7. Either way it looks like there are no plans to bring condor to EPEL.
Thanks, that makes sense. So, I guess perhaps further pondering should be done before adding the epel7 branch. In the mean time I don't see any blockers here, so this package is APPROVED. You should be able to request the 5/6 branches be unretired. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel 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]: 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". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/kevin/1148415-classads/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: 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. [x]: 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. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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 40960 bytes in 3 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]: 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 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: [x]: Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot: present but not needed [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: %clean present but not required [x]: 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]: 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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [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: classads-1.0.10-1.el6.x86_64.rpm classads-devel-1.0.10-1.el6.x86_64.rpm classads-1.0.10-1.el6.src.rpm classads.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lingua -> lingual, linguine classads.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US franca -> francs, franc, franc a classads.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US enquire -> enquirer, esquire, inquire classads.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US classad -> classed, class ad, class-ad classads.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vis -> bis, via, vi classads.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Classad -> Classed, Class ad, Class-ad classads.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libclassad_ns.so.1.0.2 exit.5 classads.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libclassad.so.1.0.2 exit.5 classads-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib classads-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation classads-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary classad_functional_tester classads-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cxi_ns classads-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary classad_version_ns classads-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary classad_version classads-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary classad_functional_tester_ns classads-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cxi classads.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lingua -> lingual, linguine classads.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US franca -> francs, franc, franc a classads.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US enquire -> enquirer, esquire, inquire classads.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US classad -> classed, class ad, class-ad classads.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vis -> bis, via, vi classads.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Classad -> Classed, Class ad, Class-ad 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 22 warnings. Requires -------- classads-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): classads(x86-64) libc.so.6()(64bit) libclassad.so.1()(64bit) libclassad_ns.so.1()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpcre.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) pcre-devel rtld(GNU_HASH) classads (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libclassad.so.1()(64bit) libclassad_ns.so.1()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpcre.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- classads-devel: classads-devel classads-devel(x86-64) classads: classads classads(x86-64) libclassad.so.1()(64bit) libclassad_ns.so.1()(64bit) Source checksums ---------------- ftp://ftp.cs.wisc.edu/condor/classad/c++/classads-1.0.10.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : cde2fe23962abb6bc99d8fc5a5cbf88f87e449b63c6bca991d783afb4691efb3 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : cde2fe23962abb6bc99d8fc5a5cbf88f87e449b63c6bca991d783afb4691efb3 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1148415 -m epel-6-x86_64 Buildroot used: epel-6-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 Kevin Fenzi from comment #4) > Thanks, that makes sense. So, I guess perhaps further pondering should be > done before adding the epel7 branch. > > In the mean time I don't see any blockers here, so this package is APPROVED. > > You should be able to request the 5/6 branches be unretired. > Thanks for the review! I'll ask EPEL 5 and 6 for now.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: classads New Branches: el5 el6 Owners: valtri
Branches exist, take ownership in pkgdb.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: classads New Branches: el5 el6 Owners: valtri I forgot to say the package is retired and needs to be unretired for EPEL. (Pkgdb currently doesn't allow to take ownership.) Thank you.
Unretired in el5 and el6.
classads-1.0.10-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/classads-1.0.10-1.el6
classads-1.0.10-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/classads-1.0.10-1.el5
classads-1.0.10-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
classads-1.0.10-1.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Classads in EPEL 5/6 now, for EPEL 7 opened #1217148 (condor). Thanks!