Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/honli/.bcc4d86c9ce430ffc0c40ba4b877b7c6/libmlx5.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/honli/.bcc4d86c9ce430ffc0c40ba4b877b7c6/libmlx5-1.0.2-1.fc22.src.rpm Description: libmlx5 provides a device-specific userspace driver for Mellanox Connect-IB HCAs for use with the libibverbs library. Fedora Account System Username: kheib
kheib's scratch build of libmlx5-1.0.2-1.fc22.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12996907
> Group: System Environment/Libraries The Group: tag is unnecessary. (per http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections) But it's harmless, so you can keep it if you want. > Url: https://www.openfabrics.org/ I see libmlx5 does not have anything like a home page of its own, so this Url is the best possible. Please consider adding a comment pointing to the libmlx5.git repository (unfortunately there is no standard RPM tag for that). I would find it useful. > %ifnarch ia64 %{sparc} %{arm} > BuildRequires: valgrind-devel > %endif valgrind is available on both armv7hl and aarch64. And Fedora no longer does any ia64 or sparc builds. So I think "BuildRequires: valgrind-devel" can be made unconditional. > ExcludeArch: s390 s390x Use of ExcludeArch needs an explanatory comment in the spec. > %package static Static libraries should only be included in exceptional circumstances. (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries) Please explain why having the static library is necessary. > %files > %doc AUTHORS COPYING README Please use %license instead of %doc for the COPYING file.
(In reply to Michal Schmidt from comment #2) > > Group: System Environment/Libraries > > The Group: tag is unnecessary. > (per http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections) > But it's harmless, so you can keep it if you want. > Will be removed in V2. > > Url: https://www.openfabrics.org/ > > I see libmlx5 does not have anything like a home page of its own, > so this Url is the best possible. > Please consider adding a comment pointing to the libmlx5.git repository > (unfortunately there is no standard RPM tag for that). I would find it > useful. > I'll add a comment pointing to [1] libmlx5 git tree in openfabrics. [1] - http://git.openfabrics.org/?p=~yishaih/libmlx5.git > > %ifnarch ia64 %{sparc} %{arm} > > BuildRequires: valgrind-devel > > %endif > > valgrind is available on both armv7hl and aarch64. > And Fedora no longer does any ia64 or sparc builds. > So I think "BuildRequires: valgrind-devel" can be made unconditional. > Will be addressed in V2. > > ExcludeArch: s390 s390x > > Use of ExcludeArch needs an explanatory comment in the spec. > Will be addressed in V2. > > %package static > > Static libraries should only be included in exceptional circumstances. > (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging: > Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries) > Please explain why having the static library is necessary. > Is the following description is not enough? Static version of libmlx5 that may be linked directly to an application, which may be useful for debugging. > > %files > > %doc AUTHORS COPYING README > > Please use %license instead of %doc for the COPYING file. Will be addressed in V2. Thanks, Kamal
(In reply to kamal heib from comment #3) > > > ExcludeArch: s390 s390x > > > > Use of ExcludeArch needs an explanatory comment in the spec. > > > > Will be addressed in V2. "RDMA support in general is not available on s390 at all. RDMA support is available in s390x, but the only hardware supported by the bare metal hypervisor provided by IBM is mlx4 hardware in Ethernet mode and providing RoCE based RDMA services. No other hardware is supported at this time and therefore the code for mlx5 does not need built on s390 or s390x." > > > > %package static > > > > Static libraries should only be included in exceptional circumstances. > > (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging: > > Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries) > > Please explain why having the static library is necessary. > > > > Is the following description is not enough? > > Static version of libmlx5 that may be linked directly to an application, > which may be useful for debugging. "The RDMA stack in general provides static versions of hardware drivers and libibverbs for reasons related to performance on large scale clusters where every cycle counts."
Updated SPEC and SRC package is available from here: http://people.redhat.com/honli/.bcc4d86c9ce430ffc0c40ba4b877b7c6/libmlx5.spec http://people.redhat.com/honli/.bcc4d86c9ce430ffc0c40ba4b877b7c6/libmlx5-1.0.2-2.fc22.src.rpm
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines - Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages ===== 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]: 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (2 clause)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 28 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/nhorman/1304632-libmlx5/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [-]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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. [-]: 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. [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. [-]: 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 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]: 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]: Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if present. Note: Package has .a files: libmlx5-static. [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. [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). Is this: Provides: libibverbs-driver.%{_arch} Being unversioned and without a driver name attached, it seems useless. [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libmlx5-static , libmlx5-debuginfo [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [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. [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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 1.2.15 starting (python version = 3.4.3)... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins Start: run Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled dnf cache Start: cleaning dnf metadata Finish: cleaning dnf metadata Mock Version: 1.2.15 INFO: Mock Version: 1.2.15 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /home/nhorman/1304632-libmlx5/results/libmlx5-1.0.2-2.fc25.x86_64.rpm /home/nhorman/1304632-libmlx5/results/libmlx5-static-1.0.2-2.fc25.x86_64.rpm /home/nhorman/1304632-libmlx5/results/libmlx5-debuginfo-1.0.2-2.fc25.x86_64.rpm /home/nhorman/1304632-libmlx5/results/libmlx5-debuginfo-1.0.2-2.fc25.x86_64.rpm ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output. # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 25 --disableplugin=local --setopt=deltarpm=false install /home/nhorman/1304632-libmlx5/results/libmlx5-1.0.2-2.fc25.x86_64.rpm /home/nhorman/1304632-libmlx5/results/libmlx5-static-1.0.2-2.fc25.x86_64.rpm /home/nhorman/1304632-libmlx5/results/libmlx5-debuginfo-1.0.2-2.fc25.x86_64.rpm /home/nhorman/1304632-libmlx5/results/libmlx5-debuginfo-1.0.2-2.fc25.x86_64.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts WARNING: unable to delete selinux filesystems (/tmp/mock-selinux-plugin.y1d75e0v): [Errno 1] Operation not permitted: '/tmp/mock-selinux-plugin.y1d75e0v' Rpmlint ------- Checking: libmlx5-1.0.2-2.fc25.x86_64.rpm libmlx5-static-1.0.2-2.fc25.x86_64.rpm libmlx5-debuginfo-1.0.2-2.fc25.x86_64.rpm libmlx5-1.0.2-2.fc25.src.rpm libmlx5.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Mellanox -> Melanoma libmlx5.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libibverbs -> verbalizes libmlx5.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/libibverbs.d/mlx5.driver libmlx5-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation libmlx5.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Mellanox -> Melanoma libmlx5.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libibverbs -> verbalizes libmlx5.src:5: W: unversioned-explicit-provides libibverbs-driver.%{_arch} 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. I think if you fix up that Provides, or explain it, we will be good to go.
Generic: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint ................... INFO: Mock Version: 1.2.15 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /home/nhorman/1304632-libmlx5/results/libmlx5-1.0.2-2.fc25.x86_64.rpm /home/nhorman/1304632-libmlx5/results/libmlx5-static-1.0.2-2.fc25.x86_64.rpm /home/nhorman/1304632-libmlx5/results/libmlx5-debuginfo-1.0.2-2.fc25.x86_64.rpm /home/nhorman/1304632-libmlx5/results/libmlx5-debuginfo-1.0.2-2.fc25.x86_64.rpm ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output. # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 25 --disableplugin=local --setopt=deltarpm=false install /home/nhorman/1304632-libmlx5/results/libmlx5-1.0.2-2.fc25.x86_64.rpm /home/nhorman/1304632-libmlx5/results/libmlx5-static-1.0.2-2.fc25.x86_64.rpm /home/nhorman/1304632-libmlx5/results/libmlx5-debuginfo-1.0.2-2.fc25.x86_64.rpm /home/nhorman/1304632-libmlx5/results/libmlx5-debuginfo-1.0.2-2.fc25.x86_64.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts ===================================================== This failed because of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1322166#c0
(In reply to Neil Horman from comment #6) > [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). > Is this: > Provides: libibverbs-driver.%{_arch} > Being unversioned and without a driver name attached, it seems useless. It is necessary. All RDMA user space drivers, for example, libcxgb3, libcxgb4, libmlx4, libmlx5 provides this. The libibverbs package dose not provide any specific driver for RDMA HCAs. The corresponding user space drivers, such as, libmlx5 dose. > > ===== EXTRA items ===== > > Generic: > [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. > Note: Mock build failed > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint This is an fedora-review tool bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1322166#c0 > [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. > Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see > attached diff). > See: (this test has no URL) Those files context is identical. But they are in different format. It seems the original spec file had been created in Windows machine. Anyway, I recreated the src file and spec file. honli@dhcp47-85:~/mlx5/rpm$ file libmlx5.spec.download_from_url libmlx5.spec.from_the_src_rpm libmlx5.spec.download_from_url: ASCII text, with CRLF line terminators libmlx5.spec.from_the_src_rpm: ASCII text > /home/nhorman/1304632-libmlx5/results/libmlx5-debuginfo-1.0.2-2.fc25.x86_64. > rpm > /home/nhorman/1304632-libmlx5/results/libmlx5-debuginfo-1.0.2-2.fc25.x86_64. > rpm As you see, duplicated debuginfo packages. > ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output. > I think if you fix up that Provides, or explain it, we will be good to go.
http://people.redhat.com/honli/.bcc4d86c9ce430ffc0c40ba4b877b7c6/libmlx5.spec http://people.redhat.com/honli/.bcc4d86c9ce430ffc0c40ba4b877b7c6/libmlx5-1.0.2-2.fc25.src.rpm http://people.redhat.com/honli/.bcc4d86c9ce430ffc0c40ba4b877b7c6/review.txt https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13512182 Neil, I had fixed all of those issues, I think we are good to go. Thanks
I concur, the mock failure is not your issue, its the fedora-review bug I've checked the other driver libs and concur, the Provides is consistent (still a bit odd, but consistent) Other items look correct now. Review ack. Thanks!
kamal, please complete the packaging process here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process To create the package in dist-git.
Kamal, Can you please confirm for me what your fedora account system username is? I need that to sponsor you into the packager group
The Provides:, while appearing odd, is so that if a person does: yum install libibverbs-utils then yum (now dnf) will install the libraries for libibverbs (which don't provide any drivers themselves), and the Requires: libibverbs-driver.%{?_arch} in libibverbs will trigger the install of one or more drivers to have the ability to support actual operations. This is simplistic, and doesn't really make sure that if you have libcxgb4 hardware that you get the libcxgb4 driver instead of the libipathverbs driver to satisfy the provides, and so things still may not work, but it results in the most common drivers working more often than not. And it means that if you specify the driver manually it will be satisfies manually, and it means that you can't remove all drivers without also removing libibverbs itself. That's all it's for.
(In reply to Neil Horman from comment #12) > Kamal, Can you please confirm for me what your fedora account system > username is? I need that to sponsor you into the packager group Hi Neil, My fedora account system username is "kheib". Thanks, Kamal
ok, you're good, you can continue this by requesting git branches for the package as per the review process
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/libmlx5
Hi, Kamal It seems you only selected 'master' in the collection field when you request a new package. F24 is missing. And I would suggest you select F23 too, then we can add libmlx5 into F23 repo. dhcp47-85:~/fedora/libmlx5$ git remote -v origin ssh://honli.org/rpms/libmlx5 (fetch) origin ssh://honli.org/rpms/libmlx5 (push) dhcp47-85:~/fedora/libmlx5$ fedpkg switch-branch Locals: * master Remotes: origin/master thanks
dhcp47-85:~/fedora/libmlx5$ fedpkg switch-branch Locals: * master Remotes: origin/f23 origin/f24 origin/master Issue had been fixed. Thanks
libmlx5-1.0.2-2.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-c84115d213
libmlx5-1.0.2-2.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-6cd7be2442
libmlx5-1.0.2-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-c84115d213
libmlx5-1.0.2-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-6cd7be2442
libmlx5-1.0.2-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
libmlx5-1.0.2-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.