Update the latest libocrdma library to Fedora. Latest version available is 1.0.6 This can be downloaded from Openfabrics download page. SRPMS: http://downloads.openfabrics.org/downloads/libocrdma/SRPMS/1.0.6/ tar.gz: http://downloads.openfabrics.org/downloads/libocrdma/libocrdma-1.0.6.tar.gz
Please provide both, a SRPM and a SPEC file for your review request. Also please provide your fas account. The full process is outlined here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process
Attaching the path to the source RPM file and Spec file available in openfabrics.org server. Src RPM file: http://downloads.openfabrics.org/downloads/libocrdma/SRPMS/1.0.6/libocrdma-1.0.6-1.el7.src.rpm Spec file: http://downloads.openfabrics.org/downloads/libocrdma/SRPMS/1.0.6/libocrdma.spec FAS Account is created. User name is - ocrdma Please let us know if you need any more information. Thanks, Selvin Xavier
please fix the bug description, it's a review request, not "Update....." We're sponsoring people into the packager group, not projects or packages. An example of a review request, what it takes etc. is for example here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1312350
Latest Fedora source RPM and spec file are available in openfabrics.org server. SRPM: http://downloads.openfabrics.org/downloads/libocrdma/SRPMS/1.0.6/libocrdma-1.0.6-2.fc23.src.rpm SPEC file: http://downloads.openfabrics.org/downloads/libocrdma/SRPMS/1.0.6/libocrdma-fc.spec Description: Userspace Library for Emulex ROCE Adapter libocrdma provides a device-specific userspace driver for Emulex One Command RoCE Adapters for using with the libibverbs library Fedora Account System UserName: sxavier
This is still broken. The spec file is misnamed: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Spec_File_Naming And it doesn't build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13369378 please fix those items and resubmit.
(In reply to Neil Horman from comment #5) > This is still broken. The spec file is misnamed: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Spec_File_Naming > > > > And it doesn't build: > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13369378 > > please fix those items and resubmit. We named the spec file as libocrdma-fc.spec to distinguish this spec files from the spec files for other distros. We plan to use this server for hosting libocrdma for other distros also. As per your suggestion, I changed the spec file to libocrdma.spec and uploaded all the files under a fedora folder Please use the latest sources and spec files from http://downloads.openfabrics.org/libocrdma/SRPMS/fedora/1.0.6/ Since i used a Windows system to upload libocrdma.spec file last week, the file format got changed to DOS and the build failure was due to the same. I converted the file to unix format using dos2unix. No changes done for the spec file. So the library version is not changed. Let us know if you need more information. Thanks, Selvin Xavier
I'll go grab them, but please use the SRPM/SPEC format prescribed in the fedora review guidelines, as it allows the automated tools to function properly.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/nhorman/review- libocrdma/diff.txt See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL - Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if present. Note: Package has .a files: libocrdma-devel. Does not provide -static: libocrdma-devel. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#StaticLibraries ===== 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. [!]: 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". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/nhorman/review-libocrdma/licensecheck.txt <NH> The spec file indicates this is GPL or BSD licensed, but the COPYING file in the source indicates GPLv2 [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. <NH> see 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. [!]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. <NH> Note: No (noreplace) in %config /etc/libibverbs.d/ocrdma.driver [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package <NH> Seems like -devel is missing header files [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [! : Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. Note: %makeinstall used in %install section <NH> DESTDIR works fine, you should use that [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 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 is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: No %config files under /usr. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libocrdma-devel , libocrdma-debuginfo [x]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. <NH> version 1.0.7 appears to have been released [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]: 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 [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. 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/review-libocrdma/results/libocrdma-1.0.6-2.fc25.x86_64.rpm /home/nhorman/review-libocrdma/results/libocrdma-devel-1.0.6-2.fc25.x86_64.rpm /home/nhorman/review-libocrdma/results/libocrdma-debuginfo-1.0.6-2.fc25.x86_64.rpm /home/nhorman/review-libocrdma/results/libocrdma-debuginfo-1.0.6-2.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/review-libocrdma/results/libocrdma-1.0.6-2.fc25.x86_64.rpm /home/nhorman/review-libocrdma/results/libocrdma-devel-1.0.6-2.fc25.x86_64.rpm /home/nhorman/review-libocrdma/results/libocrdma-debuginfo-1.0.6-2.fc25.x86_64.rpm /home/nhorman/review-libocrdma/results/libocrdma-debuginfo-1.0.6-2.fc25.x86_64.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts WARNING: unable to delete selinux filesystems (/tmp/mock-selinux-plugin.elt5dnb1): [Errno 1] Operation not permitted: '/tmp/mock-selinux-plugin.elt5dnb1' Rpmlint ------- Checking: libocrdma-1.0.6-2.fc25.x86_64.rpm libocrdma-devel-1.0.6-2.fc25.x86_64.rpm libocrdma-debuginfo-1.0.6-2.fc25.x86_64.rpm libocrdma-1.0.6-2.fc25.src.rpm libocrdma.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Userspace -> User space, User-space, Users pace libocrdma.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Userspace Library for Emulex ROCE Device. libocrdma.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US userspace -> user space, user-space, users pace libocrdma.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libibverbs -> verbalizes libocrdma.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C libocrdma provides a device-specific userspace driver for Emulex One Command RoCE Adapters libocrdma.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPL libocrdma.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/libibverbs.d/ocrdma.driver libocrdma.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%post rpm libocrdma-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPL libocrdma-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libocrdma-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPL libocrdma.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Userspace -> User space, User-space, Users pace libocrdma.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Userspace Library for Emulex ROCE Device. libocrdma.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US userspace -> user space, user-space, users pace libocrdma.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libibverbs -> verbalizes libocrdma.src: E: description-line-too-long C libocrdma provides a device-specific userspace driver for Emulex One Command RoCE Adapters libocrdma.src: W: invalid-license GPL libocrdma.src: W: file-size-mismatch libocrdma-1.0.6.tar.gz = 327021, http://www.openfabrics.org/downloads/libocrdma/libocrdma-1.0.6.tar.gz = 324568 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 16 warnings. Requires -------- libocrdma-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libocrdma-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libocrdma libocrdma (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh config(libocrdma) libc.so.6()(64bit) libibverbs.so.1()(64bit) libibverbs.so.1(IBVERBS_1.0)(64bit) libibverbs.so.1(IBVERBS_1.1)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- libocrdma-debuginfo: libocrdma-debuginfo libocrdma-debuginfo(x86-64) libocrdma-devel: libocrdma-devel libocrdma-devel(x86-64) libocrdma: config(libocrdma) libocrdma libocrdma(x86-64) libocrdma-rdmav2.so()(64bit) Unversioned so-files -------------------- libocrdma: /usr/lib64/libocrdma-rdmav2.so libocrdma: /usr/lib64/libocrdma.so Source checksums ---------------- http://www.openfabrics.org/downloads/libocrdma/libocrdma-1.0.6.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 19c1aafb545c3cce6d1680914db02a9e83e8e4051f9974d4b412d354f0595d4e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6b9aa29ca1368b2211f8a7233114f9c4f6cd305f686af8dbbe7220202b303243 diff -r also reports differences Please address the noted issues and resubmit. Thanks
Hello, ocrdma-dev Ping? Any update? Please respond to Neil's comment #8.
We are addressing review comments and resubmit for review ASAP.
(In reply to ocrdma-dev.pdl from comment #10) > We are addressing review comments and resubmit for review ASAP. Ping? any update? thanks
Sorry for the late response. I was on vacation last week. We changed the version to 1.0.8 since the files AUTHORS and COPYING is changed after fixing the review suggestions. Please find the latest SRPM and spec file uploaded in the following locations. SRPM: http://downloads.openfabrics.org/downloads/libocrdma/SRPMS/fedora/1.0.8/libocrdma-1.0.8-1.fc23.src.rpm Spec file: http://downloads.openfabrics.org/downloads/libocrdma/SRPMS/fedora/1.0.8/libocrdma.spec Can you please run the build and let us know whether it is passing your build? Thanks for the help. Selvin Xavier
Created attachment 1145930 [details] fedora review comment I created a patch to fix those issues addressed by Neil in comment #8. So, please apply it and re-create spec and src package. Please submit a koji job. And provide the URLs to spec, srpm and koji task.
(In reply to Neil Horman from comment #8) > <NH> The spec file indicates this is GPL or BSD licensed, but the COPYING > file > in the source indicates GPLv2 fixed. > > [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. > <NH> see above Fixed too. > [!]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. > <NH> Note: No (noreplace) in %config /etc/libibverbs.d/ocrdma.driver > It is unnecessary as it should be replaced. > [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. > [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package > <NH> Seems like -devel is missing header files The devel package had been renamed as static. So, it is no longer an issue. > [! : Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't > work. > Note: %makeinstall used in %install section > <NH> DESTDIR works fine, you should use that > Replace it with %{make_install}. > <NH> version 1.0.7 appears to have been released > Updated to latest 1.0.8. thanks.
Updated the spec file as per Honggang LI suggestions and uploaded the SRPMs and spec file under the following location. Also attaching the link of the koji task. i tried scrach build for rawhide target. Please let me know if i am missing anything. SRPM: http://downloads.openfabrics.org/downloads/libocrdma/SRPMS/fedora/1.0.8/libocrdma-1.0.8-2.fc23.src.rpm Spec file: http://downloads.openfabrics.org/downloads/libocrdma/SRPMS/fedora/1.0.8/libocrdma.spec koji task: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13632255 Thanks, Selvin Xavier
You missed one of the rpmlint errors libocrdma.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%post rpm You should never use rpm in an rpm spec file. Instead try running dapl --version or some such to extract the version info you need. Otherwise, you run the risk of deadlocking rpm
Hi Neil, I updated the spec file based on your comment. Attaching the new links for SRPM, spec and koji task SRPM: http://downloads.openfabrics.org/downloads/libocrdma/SRPMS/fedora/1.0.8/libocrdma-1.0.8-3.fc23.src.rpm Spec file: http://downloads.openfabrics.org/downloads/libocrdma/SRPMS/fedora/1.0.8/libocrdma.spec koji Task: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13655805 Let me know if i am missing anything. Thanks, Selvin Xavier
Can you please compare the spec files by run "diff -up old.spec new.spec"? And feedback the output. It will be helpful for reviewing. And please insert a blank new line between following two lines. - Fixing a rpmlint error in post section * Tue Apr 12 2016 Selvin Xavier <selvin.xavier> - 1.0.8-2
Additionally, in prep for the next phase of this review, I presume that you have a fedora account named ocrdma-dev.pdl? You will need an account that matches the name of your bz account if you want to get approved for packager status
(In reply to Neil Horman from comment #19) > Additionally, in prep for the next phase of this review, I presume that you > have a fedora account named ocrdma-dev.pdl? You will need an account that > matches the name of your bz account if you want to get approved for packager > status We have an account registered with mail id ocrdma-dev.pdl Account name: ocrdma This is a group mail id for ocrdma development. Will this work for the above requirement?
Created attachment 1147468 [details] spec file diff (In reply to Honggang LI from comment #18) > Can you please compare the spec files by run "diff -up old.spec new.spec"? > And feedback the output. It will be helpful for reviewing. And please insert > a blank new line between following two lines. > > - Fixing a rpmlint error in post section > * Tue Apr 12 2016 Selvin Xavier <selvin.xavier> - 1.0.8-2 spec file diff between 1.0.8-2 and 1.0.8-3
Fixed the change log mistake Please find the latest files in the following link. Spec file: http://downloads.openfabrics.org/downloads/libocrdma/SRPMS/fedora/1.0.8/libocrdma.spec SRPM: http://downloads.openfabrics.org/downloads/libocrdma/SRPMS/fedora/1.0.8/libocrdma-1.0.8-3.fc23.src.rpm Koji Task: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13666270
looks good, review ack. Regarding comment 20, yes, as long as the email matches the bugzila account email you should be good. Unfortunately, I've checked, and it seems you have failed to complete your waiver signings, as your account is enjoined from joining any other groups yet. Please investigate and let me know when you have completed the sign up process
Thank you for your review ack. This user id is approved in CLA Group and Fedora contributors group now. Can you please check and let me know if anything is missing? Thanks, Selvin Xavier
yes, you haven't imported the package or built it yet. Please follow the process here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process
Need sponsor for this ocrdma dev account for building the package.
done.
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/libocrdma
Package is imported and built. Please check the status for the libocrdma package. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/libocrdma/
looks fine
new package libocrdma is added to f24 and the state is changed as stable. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-c22b459394 Can we resolve this bug now?
yes, you're welcome to close it whenever you are ready, as per the process documentation.
The binaries are built for F25 and rawhide. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=22348 Closing this review request.