Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://mskalick.fedorapeople.org/wiredtiger/wiredtiger.spec SRPM URL: https://mskalick.fedorapeople.org/wiredtiger/wiredtiger-2.5.1-1.fc23.src.rpm Description: Hi, I've just finished packaging up WiredTiger, and I would appreciate a review so that I can get it into Fedora. WiredTiger is storage engine used in mongodb 3.0. Fedora Account System Username: mskalick
Output of rpmlint following a mock rebuild of the packages: $ rpmlint *.rpm wiredtiger.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C WiredTiger wiredtiger.src:64: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %prep sed -i -r "s|(\(PYTHON_INSTALL_ARG\))|\1 --no-compile --install-dir %{buildroot}%{python_sitelib}|" lang/python/Makefile.am wiredtiger.src: W: invalid-url Source0: https://github.com/wiredtiger/wiredtiger/releases/download/2.5.1/wiredtiger-2.5.1.tar.bz2 HTTP Error 403: Forbidden wiredtiger.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C WiredTiger wiredtiger-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libs -> lobs, lib, lbs wiredtiger-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib wiredtiger-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation wiredtiger-java.x86_64: W: no-documentation wiredtiger-java.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libwiredtiger_java.so wiredtiger-python.x86_64: W: no-documentation wiredtiger-python.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/wiredtiger/packing.py 0644L /usr/bin/env wiredtiger-python.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/wiredtiger/_wiredtiger.so 0775L wiredtiger-python.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/wiredtiger/packing-test.py 0644L /usr/bin/env wiredtiger-python.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/wiredtiger/fpacking.py 0644L /usr/bin/env wiredtiger-python.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/wiredtiger/intpacking.py 0644L /usr/bin/env wiredtiger-python.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/wiredtiger/intpack-test.py 0644L /usr/bin/env 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 10 warnings.
Hi Merek, A number of those rpmlint messages need fixes, so I'll wait for an updated package before doing the full review.
(In reply to Jonathan Underwood from comment #1) > Output of rpmlint following a mock rebuild of the packages: > > $ rpmlint *.rpm > wiredtiger.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C WiredTiger Upstream rpm template - https://github.com/wiredtiger/wiredtiger/blob/master/dist/package/wiredtiger.spec > wiredtiger.src:64: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %prep sed -i -r > "s|(\(PYTHON_INSTALL_ARG\))|\1 --no-compile --install-dir > %{buildroot}%{python_sitelib}|" lang/python/Makefile.am OK. Fixed. > wiredtiger.src: W: invalid-url Source0: > https://github.com/wiredtiger/wiredtiger/releases/download/2.5.1/wiredtiger- > 2.5.1.tar.bz2 HTTP Error 403: Forbidden This url is functional... try it. > wiredtiger.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C WiredTiger > wiredtiger-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libs -> > lobs, lib, lbs Fixed. Typo error wiredtiger-libs -> wiredtiger-devel > wiredtiger-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib > wiredtiger-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation > wiredtiger-java.x86_64: W: no-documentation devel and java subpackages requires -libs subpackage, which have the documentation. Its a normal usage of -devel, to ship .so and .pc files... > wiredtiger-java.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package > /usr/lib64/libwiredtiger_java.so I thought that this library is not for ordinary use. It is used only by .jar files... > wiredtiger-python.x86_64: W: no-documentation > wiredtiger-python.x86_64: E: non-executable-script > /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/wiredtiger/packing.py 0644L /usr/bin/env > wiredtiger-python.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm > /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/wiredtiger/_wiredtiger.so 0775L > wiredtiger-python.x86_64: E: non-executable-script > /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/wiredtiger/packing-test.py 0644L > /usr/bin/env > wiredtiger-python.x86_64: E: non-executable-script > /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/wiredtiger/fpacking.py 0644L /usr/bin/env > wiredtiger-python.x86_64: E: non-executable-script > /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/wiredtiger/intpacking.py 0644L /usr/bin/env > wiredtiger-python.x86_64: E: non-executable-script > /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/wiredtiger/intpack-test.py 0644L > /usr/bin/env > 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 10 warnings. Why should python2.7 modules file have exec right? If I try "ls -l /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/", scripts there doesn't have exec right too...
Spec URL: https://mskalick.fedorapeople.org/wiredtiger/wiredtiger.spec SRPM URL: https://mskalick.fedorapeople.org/wiredtiger/wiredtiger-2.5.1-2.fc23.src.rpm
(In reply to Marek Skalický from comment #3) > (In reply to Jonathan Underwood from comment #1) > > Output of rpmlint following a mock rebuild of the packages: > > > > $ rpmlint *.rpm > > wiredtiger.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C WiredTiger > > Upstream rpm template - > https://github.com/wiredtiger/wiredtiger/blob/master/dist/package/wiredtiger. > spec Nonetheless, the name doesn't need to be repeated in the Summary. "A data storage engine" would be sufficient, and silence the warning. > > wiredtiger.src: W: invalid-url Source0: > > https://github.com/wiredtiger/wiredtiger/releases/download/2.5.1/wiredtiger- > > 2.5.1.tar.bz2 HTTP Error 403: Forbidden > > This url is functional... try it. It is now - but it wasn't earlier - must have been some sort of connectivity issue. Anyway, confirmed, it is valid. > > wiredtiger-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib > > wiredtiger-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation > > wiredtiger-java.x86_64: W: no-documentation > > devel and java subpackages requires -libs subpackage, which have the > documentation. Its a normal usage of -devel, to ship .so and .pc files... > The .so should have the executable bit set. > > wiredtiger-java.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package > > /usr/lib64/libwiredtiger_java.so > > I thought that this library is not for ordinary use. It is used only by .jar > files... > OK, is this a plugin used only by wiredtiger? If so, it should be in a private directory, rather than on the linker search path. > > wiredtiger-python.x86_64: W: no-documentation > > wiredtiger-python.x86_64: E: non-executable-script > > /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/wiredtiger/packing.py 0644L /usr/bin/env > > wiredtiger-python.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm > > /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/wiredtiger/_wiredtiger.so 0775L > > wiredtiger-python.x86_64: E: non-executable-script > > /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/wiredtiger/packing-test.py 0644L > > /usr/bin/env > > wiredtiger-python.x86_64: E: non-executable-script > > /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/wiredtiger/fpacking.py 0644L /usr/bin/env > > wiredtiger-python.x86_64: E: non-executable-script > > /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/wiredtiger/intpacking.py 0644L /usr/bin/env > > wiredtiger-python.x86_64: E: non-executable-script > > /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/wiredtiger/intpack-test.py 0644L > > /usr/bin/env > > 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 10 warnings. > > Why should python2.7 modules file have exec right? If I try "ls -l > /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/", scripts there doesn't have exec right > too... You've misunderstood the rpmlint error message. What it's saying is that these files have a shebang set at the top, and yet are non-executable. If the files are not meant to be executable files, you also need to remove the shebang at the top of the files. A recipe something like this would work (untested): find %{buildroot}%{python_sitearch}/wiredtiger -name '*.py' \ -exec sed -i '1{\@^#!/usr/bin/env python@d}' {} \;
(In reply to Jonathan Underwood from comment #5) > (In reply to Marek Skalický from comment #3) > > (In reply to Jonathan Underwood from comment #1) > > > Output of rpmlint following a mock rebuild of the packages: > > > > > > $ rpmlint *.rpm > > > wiredtiger.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C WiredTiger > > > > Upstream rpm template - > > https://github.com/wiredtiger/wiredtiger/blob/master/dist/package/wiredtiger. > > spec > > Nonetheless, the name doesn't need to be repeated in the Summary. "A data > storage engine" would be sufficient, and silence the warning. > Fixed. > > > > wiredtiger-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib > > > wiredtiger-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation > > > wiredtiger-java.x86_64: W: no-documentation > > > > devel and java subpackages requires -libs subpackage, which have the > > documentation. Its a normal usage of -devel, to ship .so and .pc files... > > > > The .so should have the executable bit set. libwiredtiger.so has it... any other? > > > > wiredtiger-java.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package > > > /usr/lib64/libwiredtiger_java.so > > > > I thought that this library is not for ordinary use. It is used only by .jar > > files... > > > > OK, is this a plugin used only by wiredtiger? If so, it should be in a > private directory, rather than on the linker search path. > Yes, you are right. I fixed it - guidelines about JNI. > > > > wiredtiger-python.x86_64: W: no-documentation > > > wiredtiger-python.x86_64: E: non-executable-script > > > /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/wiredtiger/packing.py 0644L /usr/bin/env > > > wiredtiger-python.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm > > > /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/wiredtiger/_wiredtiger.so 0775L > > > wiredtiger-python.x86_64: E: non-executable-script > > > /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/wiredtiger/packing-test.py 0644L > > > /usr/bin/env > > > wiredtiger-python.x86_64: E: non-executable-script > > > /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/wiredtiger/fpacking.py 0644L /usr/bin/env > > > wiredtiger-python.x86_64: E: non-executable-script > > > /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/wiredtiger/intpacking.py 0644L /usr/bin/env > > > wiredtiger-python.x86_64: E: non-executable-script > > > /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/wiredtiger/intpack-test.py 0644L > > > /usr/bin/env > > > 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 10 warnings. > > > > Why should python2.7 modules file have exec right? If I try "ls -l > > /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/", scripts there doesn't have exec right > > too... > > You've misunderstood the rpmlint error message. What it's saying is that > these files have a shebang set at the top, and yet are non-executable. If > the files are not meant to be executable files, you also need to remove the > shebang at the top of the files. A recipe something like this would work > (untested): > > find %{buildroot}%{python_sitearch}/wiredtiger -name '*.py' \ > -exec sed -i '1{\@^#!/usr/bin/env python@d}' {} \; Thanks for explanation. Fixed.
OK, great - don't forget to upload the fixed spec and srpm. :)
Yes I know, sorry. I weren't able to connect fedorapeople... Spec URL: https://mskalick.fedorapeople.org/wiredtiger/wiredtiger.spec SRPM URL: https://mskalick.fedorapeople.org/wiredtiger/wiredtiger-2.5.1-3.fc23.src.rpm
Still some rpmlint flagged issues: (1) wiredtiger.src:66: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build sed -i -r "s|(\(PYTHON_INSTALL_ARG\))|\1 --no-compile --install-dir %{buildroot}%{python_sitelib}|" lang/python/Makefile.am $RPM_BUILD_ROOT should not be touched during %build or %prep stage, as it may break short circuit builds. This is because you're doing loads of stuff in %build that should be done in %prep. All of this should be in %prep: # Fix installing python files into BUILDROOT sed -i -r "s|(\(PYTHON_INSTALL_ARG\))|\1 --no-compile --install-dir %{buildroot}%{python_sitelib}|" lang/python/Makefile.am %configure --disable-static --with-builtins=zlib,snappy --enable-python --enable-java JAR="%{java_home}/bin/jar" # Stop the build setting up an rpath sed -i 's|^hardcode_libdir_flag_spec=.*|hardcode_libdir_flag_spec=""|g' libtool sed -i 's|^runpath_var=LD_RUN_PATH|runpath_var=DIE_RPATH_DIE|g' libtool The only thing in %build should be: make %{?_smp_mflags} CFLAGS="%{optflags}" (2) wiredtiger-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib There are only non binary files in /usr/lib so they should be in /usr/share. This one is because /usr/lib64/libwiredtiger.so is a symbolic link - no action needed. (3) wiredtiger-python.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/wiredtiger/_wiredtiger.so 0775L A standard executable should have permission set to 0755. If you get this message, it means that you have a wrong executable permissions in some files included in your package. This is a compiled extension, and so should be under %{python_sitearch}, rather than under %{python_sitelib}. The former is for compiled extension modules, the latter for pure python (arch independent) modules. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python
Also, small nits: (1) This: %files python %dir %{python_sitelib}/%{name} %{python_sitelib}/%{name}/* is redundant... simply: %files python %{python_sitelib}/%{name} would make the package own the directory and the files under it. Similarly for the java package. (Of course, in the python case, you'll be moving to using sitearch instead/as well). (2) For readability add a blank line before %package libs (3) For readability, break long lines with trailing "\", eg. %configure --disable-static \ --with-builtins=zlib,snappy \ --enable-python \ --enable-java JAR="%{java_home}/bin/jar" etc. (4) This weird white space is very unusual, reduces readability, and hinders others helping to maintain your package: mkdir %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/%{name} mv %{buildroot}%{_javadir}/%{name}-%{version}/lib* %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/%{name} rm %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/%{name}/lib*.so mkdir %{buildroot}%{_jnidir} mv %{buildroot}%{_javadir}/%{name}-%{version}/%{name}.jar %{buildroot}%{_jnidir}/ rmdir %{buildroot}%{_javadir}/%{name}-%{version} ... just have a single space separating the commands and their arguments.
(In reply to Jonathan Underwood from comment #9) > Still some rpmlint flagged issues: > > (1) > wiredtiger.src:66: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build sed -i -r > "s|(\(PYTHON_INSTALL_ARG\))|\1 --no-compile --install-dir > %{buildroot}%{python_sitelib}|" lang/python/Makefile.am > $RPM_BUILD_ROOT should not be touched during %build or %prep stage, as it may > break short circuit builds. > > > This is because you're doing loads of stuff in %build that should be done in > %prep. All of this should be in %prep: I am not really sure about this. In all examples of RPM on fedora wiki, confingure is in %build (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package). I wrong understood this warning, so the first version was right: sed -i -r "s|(\(PYTHON_INSTALL_ARG\))|\1 --no-compile --install-dir %{buildroot}%{python_sitelib}|" lang/python/Makefile.am -> should be in %prep and later stuff needs to be in %build. So this warning is false, because with sed, I am not touching buildroot. I changed this and BUILDROOT is used with configure. I think this warning remains... > (3) > wiredtiger-python.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm > /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/wiredtiger/_wiredtiger.so 0775L > A standard executable should have permission set to 0755. If you get this > message, it means that you have a wrong executable permissions in some files > included in your package. > > This is a compiled extension, and so should be under %{python_sitearch}, > rather than under %{python_sitelib}. The former is for compiled extension > modules, the latter for pure python (arch independent) modules. See: > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python Fixed. Spec URL: https://mskalick.fedorapeople.org/wiredtiger/wiredtiger.spec SRPM URL: https://mskalick.fedorapeople.org/wiredtiger/wiredtiger-2.5.1-4.fc23.src.rpm
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils The -java package should Require jpackage-utils (which owns /usr/lib/java). See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java - Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel You currently have a BR for python-devel - this should be python2-devel. Also, you might consider building a python3 sub-package if that is supported too - Fedora will eventually move to python 3 as the default. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python ===== 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. 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: "BSD (3 clause)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later)", "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated". 663 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jgu/rpmbuild/1201662-wiredtiger/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/licenses Need to Require jpackage-utils in the -java package. /usr/share/licenses is owned by the filsystem package, but I see no other packages Requiring filesystem, so perhaps this is OK. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/java, /usr/share/licenses As above. [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. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [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. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. jpackage-utils [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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 92160 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 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]: 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 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 Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python python2-devel BuildRequires needed as described above. Also, consider a python3 package. [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in wiredtiger- libs , wiredtiger-devel , wiredtiger-python , wiredtiger-java [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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. [-]: %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 (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Java: [x]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI Note: wiredtiger subpackage is not noarch. Please verify manually [x]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.) ===== 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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: wiredtiger-2.5.1-4.fc20.x86_64.rpm wiredtiger-libs-2.5.1-4.fc20.x86_64.rpm wiredtiger-devel-2.5.1-4.fc20.x86_64.rpm wiredtiger-python-2.5.1-4.fc20.x86_64.rpm wiredtiger-java-2.5.1-4.fc20.x86_64.rpm wiredtiger-2.5.1-4.fc20.src.rpm wiredtiger-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib wiredtiger-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation wiredtiger-python.x86_64: W: no-documentation wiredtiger-java.x86_64: W: no-documentation wiredtiger.src:70: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build --with-python-prefix=%{buildroot}%{python_sitearch} \ wiredtiger.src: W: invalid-url Source0: https://github.com/wiredtiger/wiredtiger/releases/download/2.5.1/wiredtiger-2.5.1.tar.bz2 HTTP Error 403: Forbidden 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- wiredtiger-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libsnappy.so.1()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) wiredtiger-python (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpython2.7.so.1.0()(64bit) libwiredtiger.so.0()(64bit) python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH) wiredtiger-libs(x86-64) wiredtiger (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libsnappy.so.1()(64bit) libwiredtiger.so.0()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) wiredtiger-libs(x86-64) wiredtiger-java (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libsnappy.so.1()(64bit) libwiredtiger.so.0()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) wiredtiger-libs(x86-64) wiredtiger-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libwiredtiger.so.0()(64bit) wiredtiger-libs(x86-64) Provides -------- wiredtiger-libs: libwiredtiger.so.0()(64bit) wiredtiger-libs wiredtiger-libs(x86-64) wiredtiger-python: wiredtiger-python wiredtiger-python(x86-64) wiredtiger: wiredtiger wiredtiger(x86-64) wiredtiger-java: libwiredtiger_java.so.0()(64bit) wiredtiger-java wiredtiger-java(x86-64) wiredtiger-devel: pkgconfig(wiredtiger) wiredtiger-devel wiredtiger-devel(x86-64) Unversioned so-files -------------------- wiredtiger-python: /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/wiredtiger/_wiredtiger.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/wiredtiger/wiredtiger/releases/download/2.5.1/wiredtiger-2.5.1.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 589fbad039b26e37be6eaa449d657f4914f9fdaad8ff2afbe3fde041de4aaeef CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 589fbad039b26e37be6eaa449d657f4914f9fdaad8ff2afbe3fde041de4aaeef Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1201662 Buildroot used: fedora-20-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic, Java, C/C++ Disabled plugins: fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Haskell, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
(In reply to Jonathan Underwood from comment #12) > Package Review > Issues: > ======= > - Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils > > The -java package should Require jpackage-utils (which owns > /usr/lib/java). See: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java Fixed. > > - Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel > > You currently have a BR for python-devel - this should be > python2-devel. Also, you might consider building a python3 > sub-package if that is supported too - Fedora will eventually move to > python 3 as the default. See: > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python > Fixed. I will ask upstream about supporting python3... Spec URL: https://mskalick.fedorapeople.org/wiredtiger/wiredtiger.spec SRPM URL: https://mskalick.fedorapeople.org/wiredtiger/wiredtiger-2.5.1-5.fc23.src.rpm
Hmm... You've put the Requires: jpackage-utils in the main package, rather than the -java sub-package. I believe it should be in the -java sub-package.
I agree. Sorry, moved. Spec URL: https://mskalick.fedorapeople.org/wiredtiger/wiredtiger.spec SRPM URL: https://mskalick.fedorapeople.org/wiredtiger/wiredtiger-2.5.1-5.fc23.src.rpm
OK, great, approved. But can you change the Require: jpackage-utils to javapackages-tools - the Java packaging guidelines was updated yesterday.
Changed... Jonathan, thank you very much for the review.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: wiredtiger Short Description: A data storage engine Upstream URL: http://www.wiredtiger.com/ Owners: mskalick Branches: epel7 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
wiredtiger-2.5.1-6.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/wiredtiger-2.5.1-6.el7
Package wiredtiger-2.5.1-6.el7: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=epel-testing wiredtiger-2.5.1-6.el7' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-1555/wiredtiger-2.5.1-6.el7 then log in and leave karma (feedback).
wiredtiger-2.5.2-1.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/wiredtiger-2.5.2-1.el7
wiredtiger-2.5.2-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.