Bug 1260246 - Review Request: memtailor - C++ library of special-purpose memory allocators
Summary: Review Request: memtailor - C++ library of special-purpose memory allocators
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Antonio T. (sagitter)
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2015-09-04 23:35 UTC by Jerry James
Modified: 2015-09-19 18:54 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

Fixed In Version: 0-1.20130809.git722a30c.fc23
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2015-09-19 18:54:17 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
anto.trande: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Jerry James 2015-09-04 23:35:07 UTC
Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/memtailor/memtailor.spec
SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/memtailor/memtailor-0-1.20130809.git722a30c.fc24.src.rpm
Fedora Account System Username: jjames
Description: Memtailor is a C++ library of special purpose memory allocators. It  currently offers an arena allocator and a memory pool.

The main motivation to use a memtailor allocator is better and more predictable performance than you get with new/delete. Sometimes a memtailor allocator can also be more convenient due to the ability to free many allocations at one time.

The Memtailor memory pool is useful if you need to do many allocations of a fixed size. For example a memory pool is well suited to allocate the nodes in a linked list.

You can think of the Memtailor arena allocator as being similar to stack allocation. Both kinds of allocation are very fast and require you to allocate/deallocate memory in last-in-first-out order. Arena allocation has the further benefits that it stays within the C++ standard, it will not cause a stack overflow, you can have multiple arena allocators at the same time and allocation is not tied to a function invocation.

Comment 1 Antonio T. (sagitter) 2015-09-14 17:57:50 UTC
Package approved.

Notes:

The code released with "GPL (v2 or later)" is related to source files for
test building.

The 'private-shared-object-provides' warning seems a false positive; see
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1253917

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: "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 13 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/sagitter/1260246-memtailor/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: 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.
[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 10240 bytes in 1 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 %license.
[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:
[-]: 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).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[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.
[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]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[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.

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

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[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: memtailor-0-1.20130809.git722a30c.fc24.x86_64.rpm
          memtailor-devel-0-1.20130809.git722a30c.fc24.x86_64.rpm
          memtailor-0-1.20130809.git722a30c.fc24.src.rpm
memtailor.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) allocators -> locators, allocates, alligators
memtailor.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US allocators -> locators, allocates, alligators
memtailor.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US allocator -> allocate, locator, calculator
memtailor.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US deallocate -> reallocate, deal locate, deal-locate
memtailor-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
memtailor-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
memtailor.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) allocators -> locators, allocates, alligators
memtailor.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US allocators -> locators, allocates, alligators
memtailor.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US allocator -> allocate, locator, calculator
memtailor.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US deallocate -> reallocate, deal locate, deal-locate
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings.




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: memtailor-debuginfo-0-1.20130809.git722a30c.fc24.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
memtailor.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/libmemtailor.so.0.0.0 libmemtailor.so.0()(64bit)
memtailor-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
memtailor-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.



Requires
--------
memtailor (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /sbin/ldconfig
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

memtailor-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    libmemtailor.so.0()(64bit)
    memtailor(x86-64)



Provides
--------
memtailor:
    libmemtailor.so.0()(64bit)
    memtailor
    memtailor(x86-64)

memtailor-devel:
    memtailor-devel
    memtailor-devel(x86-64)
    pkgconfig(memtailor)



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/broune/memtailor/tarball/722a30ce258eb38bee0a834406aed60a06f32d1d/broune-memtailor-722a30c.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : ef6db87ec2d4bea9613ea009162e9b59dba24c1ee65c6decd12b49dc0dadc98e
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ef6db87ec2d4bea9613ea009162e9b59dba24c1ee65c6decd12b49dc0dadc98e


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1260246
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 2 Jerry James 2015-09-15 02:38:28 UTC
Antonio, thank you very much for the review!

Comment 3 Jerry James 2015-09-15 02:39:58 UTC
New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: memtailor
Short Description: C++ library of special-purpose memory allocators
Upstream URL: https://github.com/broune/memtailor
Owners: jjames
Branches: f23
InitialCC:

Comment 4 Gwyn Ciesla 2015-09-15 13:33:07 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 5 Fedora Update System 2015-09-16 02:26:42 UTC
memtailor-0-1.20130809.git722a30c.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-15975

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2015-09-16 04:52:29 UTC
memtailor-0-1.20130809.git722a30c.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.\nIf you want to test the update, you can install it with \n su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update memtailor'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-15975

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2015-09-19 18:54:16 UTC
memtailor-0-1.20130809.git722a30c.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.


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