Bug 1222709 - Review Request: memkind - User Extensible Heap Manager
Summary: Review Request: memkind - User Extensible Heap Manager
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Marcelo Barbosa "firemanxbr"
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2015-05-18 21:49 UTC by Rafael Aquini
Modified: 2015-06-21 00:09 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version: memkind-0.2.2-3.20150525git.fc22
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2015-06-20 21:09:20 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
marcelo.barbosa: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Rafael Aquini 2015-05-18 21:49:44 UTC
Spec URL: https://aquini.fedorapeople.org/memkind/memkind.spec
SRPM URL: https://aquini.fedorapeople.org/memkind/memkind-0.2.2-1.20150518git.fc23.src.rpm

Description: The memkind library is an user extensible heap manager built on top of a customized jemalloc fork which enables control of memory characteristics and partitioning of the heap between types of memory.
The types (kind) of memory are defined by operating system memory policies that have been applied to virtual address ranges. Memory characteristics supported by memkind without user extension include control of NUMA and page size features. This software is being made available for early evaluation.


Fedora Account System Username: aquini


rpmlint output for the .spec:
$ rpmlint SPECS/memkind.spec 
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Koji scratch-Build URL: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9779121

Comment 1 Douglas Schilling Landgraf 2015-05-19 01:37:12 UTC
Hi Rafael,

I saw Marcelo took the bug, here two quick comments, from: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines

#1)
 MUST: 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 must be included in %license.[4]


#2)
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2
 Exceptions

There is no need to include the following packages or their dependencies as BuildRequires because they would occur too often. These packages are considered the minimum build environment. 

<snip>
gcc-c++
</snip>

Comment 2 Rafael Aquini 2015-05-19 02:55:28 UTC
(In reply to Douglas Schilling Landgraf from comment #1)
> Hi Rafael,
> 
> I saw Marcelo took the bug, here two quick comments, from:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines
> 
> #1)
>  MUST: 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 must be included in %license.[4]
> 
> 
> #2)
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/
> Guidelines#Exceptions_2
>  Exceptions
> 
> There is no need to include the following packages or their dependencies as
> BuildRequires because they would occur too often. These packages are
> considered the minimum build environment. 
> 
> <snip>
> gcc-c++
> </snip>

Thanks for taking the time to review this work Douglas!

Here's the adjusted spec, following your feedback:

Spec URL: https://aquini.fedorapeople.org/memkind/memkind.spec
SRPM URL: https://aquini.fedorapeople.org/memkind/memkind-0.2.2-2.20150518git.fc23.src.rpm

Koji scratch-Build URL: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9782909

-- Rafael

Comment 3 Rafael Aquini 2015-05-25 16:17:47 UTC
I figured a required minor adjustment to autotools m4 macro usage was missing for this rpm recipe -- https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools. Here's the updated spec and src.rpm URLs:

Spec URL: https://aquini.fedorapeople.org/memkind/memkind.spec
SRPM URL: https://aquini.fedorapeople.org/memkind/memkind-0.2.2-3.20150525git.fc23.src.rpm


Koji scratch-build URL: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9842789

-- Rafael

Comment 4 Rafael Aquini 2015-06-01 19:44:41 UTC
Howdy Marcelo,

Is there any other lingering issue blocking this review going ahead? Please let me know so I can quickly address it.

Cheers!
-- Rafael

Comment 5 Marcelo Barbosa "firemanxbr" 2015-06-01 22:58:59 UTC
Rafael, 

   Your package was approved, congrats! more informations about this process, please learning this wiki: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


===== 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated",
     "BSD (2 clause)". 115 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/marcelo.barbosa/1222709-memkind/licensecheck.txt
[-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[-]: 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
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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 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]: 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]: 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]: Dist tag is present.
[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 does not use a name that already exists.
[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
[-]: 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 memkind-
     devel
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[-]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[-]: 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]: %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]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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: memkind-0.2.2-3.20150525git.fc23.x86_64.rpm
          memkind-devel-0.2.2-3.20150525git.fc23.x86_64.rpm
          memkind-0.2.2-3.20150525git.fc23.src.rpm
memkind.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US jemalloc -> allocate
memkind.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary memkind-pmtt
memkind.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary memkind-hbw-nodes
memkind-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US jemalloc -> allocate
memkind-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pre -> per, ore, pee
memkind-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
memkind.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US jemalloc -> allocate
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.


Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: memkind-debuginfo-0.2.2-3.20150525git.fc23.x86_64.rpm
memkind-debuginfo.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.


all warnings are false positive, the package follows the original source and
format.


Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
memkind-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US jemalloc -> allocate
memkind-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pre -> per, ore, pee
memkind-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
memkind.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US jemalloc -> allocate
memkind.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libmemkind.so.0.0.1 /lib64/libgomp.so.1
memkind.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary memkind-pmtt
memkind.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary memkind-hbw-nodes
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.



Requires
--------
memkind-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libmemkind.so.0()(64bit)
    memkind

memkind (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /sbin/ldconfig
    /usr/bin/env
    ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libgomp.so.1()(64bit)
    libmemkind.so.0()(64bit)
    libnuma.so.1()(64bit)
    libnuma.so.1(libnuma_1.1)(64bit)
    libnuma.so.1(libnuma_1.2)(64bit)
    libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)



Provides
--------
memkind-devel:
    memkind-devel
    memkind-devel(x86-64)

memkind:
    libmemkind.so.0()(64bit)
    memkind
    memkind(x86-64)



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/memkind/memkind/archive/35c83cee96432edc0b5b21680535a2f2b77a1801/memkind-35c83cee96432edc0b5b21680535a2f2b77a1801.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : c9ad7d6f0517d6fc891475879844b815fab2a65dc7e4ac49ca91287d5950c7aa
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c9ad7d6f0517d6fc891475879844b815fab2a65dc7e4ac49ca91287d5950c7aa
https://github.com/memkind/jemalloc/archive/8a46c970035ada0154f302418cb436de49606231/jemalloc-8a46c970035ada0154f302418cb436de49606231.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 41f328baa7905058ca8c4aa1a961ca6139afaba52861b2557eb505e3a9caee3e
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 41f328baa7905058ca8c4aa1a961ca6139afaba52861b2557eb505e3a9caee3e


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1222709
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

Comment 6 Rafael Aquini 2015-06-02 00:07:42 UTC
New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: memkind
Short Description: User Extensible Heap Manager
Upstream URL: http://memkind.github.io/memkind
Owners: aquini
Branches: f21 f22 f23 epel7
InitialCC:

Comment 7 Gwyn Ciesla 2015-06-02 13:21:09 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2015-06-02 20:58:20 UTC
memkind-0.2.2-3.20150525git.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/memkind-0.2.2-3.20150525git.fc22

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2015-06-02 20:59:15 UTC
memkind-0.2.2-3.20150525git.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/memkind-0.2.2-3.20150525git.fc21

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2015-06-02 20:59:55 UTC
memkind-0.2.2-3.20150525git.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/memkind-0.2.2-3.20150525git.el7

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2015-06-03 15:46:32 UTC
memkind-0.2.2-3.20150525git.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository.

Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2015-06-20 21:09:20 UTC
memkind-0.2.2-3.20150525git.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository.

Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2015-06-20 23:55:51 UTC
memkind-0.2.2-3.20150525git.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.

Comment 14 Fedora Update System 2015-06-21 00:09:30 UTC
memkind-0.2.2-3.20150525git.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.