Bug 1241282 - Review Request: rpm-mpi-hooks - RPM dependency generator hooks for MPI packages
Summary: Review Request: rpm-mpi-hooks - RPM dependency generator hooks for MPI packages
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Jonathan Underwood
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: 1238428
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2015-07-08 22:23 UTC by Sandro Mani
Modified: 2015-07-26 20:03 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2015-07-26 20:03:48 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
jonathan.underwood: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Sandro Mani 2015-07-08 22:23:31 UTC
Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/rpm-mpi-hooks.spec
SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/rpm-mpi-hooks-1.0-1.fc23.src.rpm
Description: RPM dependency generator hooks for MPI packages
Fedora Account System Username: smani

Comment 1 Jonathan Underwood 2015-07-08 23:50:03 UTC
Package Review
==============

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

Issues:
You should probably add a header to the individual source files
indicating that they are in the public domain (assuming that's your
intention-I am assuming the because of the license tag in the spec file).

Note that the default Fedora contributor license is MIT for code - are
you sure you wish to place these files in the public domain?

See other items below

===== MUST items =====

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 %license.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
     upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
     licenses manually.

You should probably add a header to the individual source files
indicating that they are in the public domain.

Note that the default Fedora contributor license is MIT for code - are
you sure you wish to place these files in the public domain?

[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/rpm/fileattrs

This directory is owned by rpm-build and so your package should
Require rpm-build.

[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[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.

See above for rpm-build

[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[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 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
     file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).

See above

[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: 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]: 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]: 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:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: rpm-mpi-hooks-1.0-1.fc22.noarch.rpm
          rpm-mpi-hooks-1.0-1.fc22.src.rpm
rpm-mpi-hooks.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US openmpi -> opening
rpm-mpi-hooks.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mpich -> chimp
rpm-mpi-hooks.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US devel -> delve, delve, devil, revel
rpm-mpi-hooks.noarch: E: changelog-time-in-future 2015-07-09
rpm-mpi-hooks.noarch: W: no-url-tag
rpm-mpi-hooks.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
rpm-mpi-hooks.noarch: W: no-documentation
rpm-mpi-hooks.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US openmpi -> opening
rpm-mpi-hooks.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mpich -> chimp
rpm-mpi-hooks.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US devel -> delve, devil, revel
rpm-mpi-hooks.src: E: changelog-time-in-future 2015-07-09
rpm-mpi-hooks.src: W: no-url-tag
rpm-mpi-hooks.src: W: strange-permission mpi.prov 0755L
rpm-mpi-hooks.src: W: strange-permission mpi.req 0755L
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 12 warnings.

--> By the time you read this the changelog entry won't be in the
    future :)


Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
rpm-mpi-hooks.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US openmpi -> opening
rpm-mpi-hooks.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mpich -> chimp
rpm-mpi-hooks.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US devel -> delve, devil, revel
rpm-mpi-hooks.noarch: E: changelog-time-in-future 2015-07-09
rpm-mpi-hooks.noarch: W: no-url-tag
rpm-mpi-hooks.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
rpm-mpi-hooks.noarch: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings.



Requires
--------
rpm-mpi-hooks (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/bash
    filesystem
    rpm



Provides
--------
rpm-mpi-hooks:
    rpm-mpi-hooks




Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1241282
Buildroot used: fedora-22-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

Comment 2 Sandro Mani 2015-07-09 07:35:51 UTC
Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/rpm-mpi-hooks.spec
SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/rpm-mpi-hooks-1.0-2.fc23.src.rpm

%changelog
* Thu Jul 09 2015 Sandro Mani <manisandro> 1.0-2
- BuildRequires: rpm -> rpm-build
- Change license to MIT


-> Unsure whether I should also be adding a LICENSE file to install as %license

Comment 3 Jonathan Underwood 2015-07-09 07:39:14 UTC
Yes, please do add a LICENSE file for the avoidance of doubt.

Comment 4 Sandro Mani 2015-07-09 08:00:40 UTC
Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/rpm-mpi-hooks.spec
SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/rpm-mpi-hooks-1.0-3.fc23.src.rpm

%changelog
* Thu Jul 09 2015 Sandro Mani <manisandro> 1.0-3
- Add LICENSE

Comment 5 Jonathan Underwood 2015-07-09 08:06:08 UTC
Great, marking as APPROVED. Thanks for this contribution to Fedora, it's always good to see folks working on MPI support.

Comment 6 Sandro Mani 2015-07-09 08:22:47 UTC
Thanks for the quick review!

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: rpm-mpi-hooks
Short Description: RPM dependency generator hooks for MPI packages
Owners: smani
Branches:
InitialCC:

Comment 7 Gwyn Ciesla 2015-07-09 17:50:27 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 8 Orion Poplawski 2015-07-09 18:34:52 UTC
From -devel list:

>
> libfoo.so()(64bit)
> libfoo.so()(64bit)(openmpi-x86_64)
>

Isn't the -x86_64 redundant?  Also though I guess we don't have an mpi
variable MPI_NAME.

Also, your trick of using:

  for module in $(module avail 2>&1 | grep "^mpi/"); do

to find the available mpi modules needs a "-t" option for Lmod.  Fortunately
this also works with environment-modules:

 for module in $(module -t avail 2>&1 | grep "^mpi/"); do

Also, it doesn't seem to get all of the requires quite right.  For
scorep-openmpi I have:

Provides: libscorep_adapter_compiler_event.so.2()(64bit)(openmpi-x86_64)

but:

Requires: libscorep_adapter_compiler_event.so.2()(64bit)

is being emitted.  This appears to be coming from:

./fileattrs/libsymlink.attr:%__libsymlink_requires
%{_rpmconfigdir}/elfdeps --provides --soname-only

So it looks like we need to contend with that as well.

# cat fileattrs/libsymlink.attr
# Make libfoo.so symlinks require the soname-provide of the target library
%__libsymlink_requires          %{_rpmconfigdir}/elfdeps --provides --soname-only
%__libsymlink_magic             ^symbolic link to `.*lib.*\.so\..*'$
%__libsymlink_exclude_path      ^.*[[:digit:]]$


Perhaps with:

%global __libsymlink_exclude_path     ^%{_prefix}/lib(64)?/(openmpi|mpich)/.*$

in mpi packages.  Perhaps we need a %mpi_filters or similar macro that mpi packages need to add to their specfiles.

Comment 9 Orion Poplawski 2015-07-09 18:39:25 UTC
Would be somewhat nice to have consistent package naming.  Different packages that provide rpm generators:

ghc-rpm-macros
nodejs-packaging
perl-generators
redhat-rpm-config


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