Hide Forgot
Spec URL: https://peter.fedorapeople.org/packages/erlang-riak_ensemble.spec SRPM URL: https://peter.fedorapeople.org/packages/erlang-riak_ensemble-2.1.2-1.fc24.src.rpm Description: A consensus library that supports creating multiple consensus groups (ensembles). Each ensemble is a separate Multi-Paxos instance with its own leader, set of members, and state. Each ensemble also supports an extended API that provides consistent key/value operations. Conceptually, this is identical to treating each key as a separate Paxos entity. However, this isn't accomplished by having each key maintain its own Paxos group. Instead, an ensemble emulates per-key consensus through a combination of per-key and per-ensemble state. Fedora Account System Username: peter
This sounds neat!
Nice work! I put a few !'s below, but the only one that's in the MUST section is that there should be a -debuginfo package. 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. [-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [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: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/rbarlow/review/1329850-erlang-riak_ensemble/licensecheck.txt [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. [!]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. rbarlow: Please remove the debug_package global at the top. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 409600 bytes in 12 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: [x]: 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]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. rbarlow: There's now a 2.1.3 version, so you might want to update to that. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. rbarlow: Can you add comments about the state of these patches inline in the spec file? If there are upstream pull requests, that would be great. [-]: 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. rbarlow: The tests are commented. IMO, unit tests aren't always that valuable to run during packaging because that's what CI is for. However, my preference is to not have commented code. So if the tests don't pass, I recommend removing the check section entirely. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: 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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: erlang-riak_ensemble-2.1.2-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm erlang-riak_ensemble-2.1.2-1.fc25.src.rpm erlang-riak_ensemble.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Multi -> Mulch, Mufti erlang-riak_ensemble.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/erlang/lib/riak_ensemble-2.1.2/priv/riak_ensemble.so erlang-riak_ensemble.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Multi -> Mulch, Mufti 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory erlang-riak_ensemble.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Multi -> Mulch, Mufti erlang-riak_ensemble.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/erlang/lib/riak_ensemble-2.1.2/priv/riak_ensemble.so 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Requires -------- erlang-riak_ensemble (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): erlang(erl_nif_version) erlang-crypto(x86-64) erlang-eleveldb(x86-64) erlang-erts(x86-64) erlang-kernel(x86-64) erlang-lager(x86-64) erlang-stdlib(x86-64) libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- erlang-riak_ensemble: erlang-riak_ensemble erlang-riak_ensemble(x86-64) Unversioned so-files -------------------- erlang-riak_ensemble: /usr/lib64/erlang/lib/riak_ensemble-2.1.2/priv/riak_ensemble.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/basho/riak_ensemble/archive/2.1.2/riak_ensemble-2.1.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6569d41a3d1223e917c963a50a715b18dccb06b24df014ef5152e3d59744f2a5 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6569d41a3d1223e917c963a50a715b18dccb06b24df014ef5152e3d59744f2a5 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1329850 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
Thanks, Randy! I'll address all your comments shortly, except one - %check section. I'm going to fix tests soon (in a couple of weeks, maybe month), so I'd like to keep them for a while. This is my TODO list item :)
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/erlang-riak_ensemble
erlang-riak_ensemble-2.1.2-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-c86f9486e1
erlang-riak_ensemble-2.1.2-1.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-c86f9486e1
erlang-riak_ensemble-2.1.2-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.