Spec URL: https://github.com/01org/opa-fm/releases/download/v1.0/opafm.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/01org/opa-fm/releases/download/v1.0/opa-fm-10.0.1.0-2.src.rpm Description: OPA Fabric Manager is a set of software components that perform fabric management services within an OPA fabric. Fedora Account System Username: sbreyer
Hi Scott, the spec file needs significant changes to satisfy the Fedora packaging guidelines. For reference, here's opa-fm.spec from RHEL 7.2: https://git.centos.org/commit/rpms!opa-fm/86e0339280cacfb4030401f661b9c50c81db9c6d I'll write down more specific comments later.
Many of the issues I pointed out in opa-ff in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1333531#c3 apply to opa-fm as well. In addition to those, opa-fm has the following issues: - The spec uses both ExclusiveArch and ExcludeArch. That does not make sense. - The package's scriptlets must follow the packaging guidelines about systemd.
Updated Spec and SRPM released to github addressing many of the issues identified in opa-ff, and those identified in comment #2. Koji results: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=14534158 Spec URL: https://github.com/01org/opa-fm/releases/download/v1.1/opa-fm.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/01org/opa-fm/releases/download/v1.1/opa-fm-10.1.0.0-145.fc23.src.rpm
Spec file and SRPM updated to address more issues identified in review of sibling package opa-ff (bug 1333531): Spec URL: https://github.com/01org/opa-fm/releases/download/v1.2/opa-fm.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/01org/opa-fm/releases/download/v1.2/opa-fm-10.1.0.0-145.fc23.src.rpm
Same as opa-ff (bug 1333531), I believe opa-fm would benefit from having a separate install script instead of having the install logic only in the spec file. For opa-fm, the Fedora Packaging Guidelines about systemd must be followed. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Systemd
Hi Michal, As stated in bug 1333531, we will work a solution as per your suggestion (for and install script) into an upcoming release. Thank you for your help, and again, apologies for the delay in the response. Regarding systemd, I will consult with our subject matter experts to make your approach compliant with the Fedora guidelines. Is there something specific here you wish to target our attention to? Thanks, Scott
Hello Michal, Regarding the guidelines for systemd, our subject matter expert is confident after review that we are in compliance with the Fedora Packaging Guidelines. Can you point to something specific that you believe is non-compliant? Thanks, Scott
We've made changes to our spec file that should be in line with what you are asking. The patch is presently making its way through our internal review and test process.
(In reply to Scott Breyer from comment #7) When referring to the directory with systemd units the %_unitdir macro should be used. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Systemd#Filesystem_locations The package's scriptlets should use %systemd_post and similar macros as described in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Scriptlets#Systemd
Please do not test for the presence of systemctl at package install time (as in "if [ $(command -v systemctl) ]"). In fact I would recommend to drop the chkconfig branches entirely. All active Fedora releases use systemd and so does RHEL 7.
New tag/sha has been pushed to v10_3_1 branch of 01org/opa-fm: tag v10.3.1.0.6 : 4a98a65
Please consider to fix these issues: 1) opafm.service is executable. The opafm.service file was installed by copy opa-fm/Esm/ib/src/linux/startup/opafm.service, which is executable in source code. The right mode is 0644. $ ls -l /usr/lib/systemd/system/opafm.service -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 2075 Mar 13 21:46 /usr/lib/systemd/system/opafm.service 2) opafm should require libhfi1, otherwise opafm.service can't start. Mar 13 22:16:03 rdma-qe-14 fm0_sm[89692]: PROGR[main]: SM: [VF:Default] : Base SL:0 Base SC:0 NumScs:1 QOS:0 HP:0 Mar 13 22:16:03 rdma-qe-14 fm0_sm[89692]: PROGR[main]: SM: [VF:Admin] : Base SL:0 Base SC:0 NumScs:1 QOS:0 HP:0 Mar 13 22:16:04 rdma-qe-14 fm0_sm[89692]: oib_utils ERROR: [89692] open_verbs_ctx: failed to find verbs device Mar 13 22:16:04 rdma-qe-14 fm0_sm[89692]: ERROR[main]: APP: ib_init_devport: Failed to bind to device 1, port ...us: 5 Mar 13 22:16:04 rdma-qe-14 fm0_sm[89692]: ; MSG:NOTICE|SM:Default SM:port 1|COND:#7 SM shutdown|DETAIL:sm_main...ating Mar 13 22:16:04 rdma-qe-14 fm0_sm[89692]: FATAL[main]: SM: sm_main: sm_main: Failed to bind to device; terminating Mar 13 22:16:04 rdma-qe-14 FATAL:[89692]: sm_main: Failed to bind to device; terminating Mar 13 22:16:06 rdma-qe-14 systemd[1]: opafm.service stop-post timed out. Terminating. Please insert "Requires: libhfi1" into the opa-fm.spec.in file.
opa-fm require /var/usr/lib/opa-fm/ to run, oap-fm must create and own this directory. =========== %install .... mkdir -p %{buildroot}/%{_localstatedir}/usr/lib/opa-fm/ ... %file %{_localstatedir}/usr/lib/opa-fm/ .... ============
New tag/sha has been pushed to v10_3_1-spec-rework temporary branch of 01org/opa-fm for your review: tag v10.3.1.0.7-pre : d8485ef
I'm taking over this review request.
Created attachment 1554625 [details] Spec file to address Fedora issues
Created attachment 1554626 [details] Source package to address Fedora issues
I failed to build the src create by the spec and tarball in previous two comments. My laptop is running fedora29. I added these BuildRequires to your spec file. BuildRequires: gcc BuildRequires: gcc-c++ BuildRequires: python-unversioned-command fc29@localhost:~/intel-src$ mock -mock --rebuild --resultdir=fc31 -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 ./opa-fm-10.9.1.1-1.fc29.src.rpm ........ + set +x Build Errors: Patch failed for filename: sm make: *** [Makefile.linux:256: prepfiles] Error 1 make[2]: *** [Makefile:178: STAGE] Error 1 make[3]: *** [/builddir/build/BUILD/opa-fm-10.9.1.1/Makerules/Maketargets.toplevel:89: STAGE] Error 2 make[4]: *** [/builddir/build/BUILD/opa-fm-10.9.1.1/Makerules/Maketargets.stage:49: STAGE] Error 1 make[4]: *** [/builddir/build/BUILD/opa-fm-10.9.1.1/Makerules/Rules.Common:224: buildcmdsonly] Error 2 make[5]: *** No rule to make target 'libpm.a', needed by 'build.VIEO_HOST.release/sm'. Stop. make[6]: *** [/builddir/build/BUILD/opa-fm-10.9.1.1/Makerules/Rules.Common:220: buildlibsonly] Error 2 make[6]: *** [/builddir/build/BUILD/opa-fm-10.9.1.1/Makerules/Rules.Common:224: buildcmdsonly] Error 2 make[7]: *** [/builddir/build/BUILD/opa-fm-10.9.1.1/Makerules/Maketargets.toplevel:145: LIBS] Error 2 make[7]: *** [/builddir/build/BUILD/opa-fm-10.9.1.1/Makerules/Maketargets.toplevel:96: CMDS] Error 2 make[8]: *** [/builddir/build/BUILD/opa-fm-10.9.1.1/Makerules/Rules.Common:224: buildcmdsonly] Error 2 make[8]: *** [/builddir/build/BUILD/opa-fm-10.9.1.1/Makerules/Rules.Common:416: build.VIEO_HOST.release/pm_sweep.c.dep] Error 1 make[9]: *** No rule to make target 'libpm.a', needed by 'opamkdsapdb'. Stop. FAILED Build, errors detected: VIEO_HOST X86_64 release error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.9ngYiu (%build)
Created attachment 1555304 [details] Updated spec file This works for me with the updated tarball.
Created attachment 1555305 [details] Updated source package to address Fedora issues This works for me with the updated spec file
(In reply to Scott Breyer from comment #19) > Created attachment 1555304 [details] > Updated spec file > > This works for me with the updated tarball. (In reply to Scott Breyer from comment #20) > Created attachment 1555305 [details] > Updated source package to address Fedora issues > > This works for me with the updated spec file Issue persists. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=34204428 https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/4428/34204428/build.log Please use 'fedpkg' to submit a scratch build. 1) Update your krb5 ticket $ kinit sbreyer 2) clone libpsm2 to cheat fedora $ fedpkg clone libpsm2 $ cd libpsm2 $ rm -fr ./* 3) save the spec and tarball linked in comment #19 and #20 into the libpsm2 directory. 4) update the 'sources' file $ md5sum opa-fm.tar.gz > sources $ libpsm2 (master)]$ ls opa-fm.spec opa-fm.tar.gz source 5) create the srpm file libpsm2 (master)]$ fedpkg srpm Wrote: xxxx/libpsm2/opa-fm-10.9.1.1-1.fc31.src.rpm 6) submit a scratch build libpsm2 (master)]$ fedpkg build --scratch --skip-tag --srpm opa-fm-10.9.1.1-1.fc31.src.rpm [====================================] 100% 00:00:02 5.97 MiB 2.74 MiB/sec Building opa-fm-10.9.1.1-1.fc31.src.rpm for rawhide Created task: 34204804 Task info: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=34204804 Watching tasks (this may be safely interrupted)... 34204804 build (rawhide, opa-fm-10.9.1.1-1.fc31.src.rpm): free 7) wait for the build completed and check the log file.
Having trouble getting fedpkg to work, probably a kerberos or proxy issue. I looked at your log and see another missing dependency, uploading a new spec file and source package.
Created attachment 1555632 [details] Updated spec file
Created attachment 1555633 [details] Updated source package to address Fedora issues
(In reply to Scott Breyer from comment #22) > Having trouble getting fedpkg to work, probably a kerberos or proxy issue. > > I looked at your log and see another missing dependency, uploading a new > spec file and source package. Confirmed it works now. (In reply to Scott Breyer from comment #23) > Created attachment 1555632 [details] > Updated spec file This spec file needs clean up please next comment for details. (In reply to Scott Breyer from comment #24) > Created attachment 1555633 [details] > Updated source package to address Fedora issues I have to rename the source tarball. We will have to upload the source tarball to Fedora internal source control system (SCM). Each time upload a file exists in SCM will trigger a security alert. I rename the top directory of source as opa-fm-10.9.1.1 . And rename opa-fm.tar.gz as opa-fm-10.9.1.1.tar.gz .
(In reply to Scott Breyer from comment #23) > Created attachment 1555632 [details] > Updated spec file cat -n opa-fm.spec 1 # BEGIN_ICS_COPYRIGHT8 **************************************** 2 # 3 # Copyright (c) 2015-2018, Intel Corporation 4 # 5 # Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without 6 # modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: 7 # 8 # * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, 9 # this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. 10 # * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright 11 # notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the 12 # documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. 13 # * Neither the name of Intel Corporation nor the names of its contributors 14 # may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software 15 # without specific prior written permission. 16 # 17 # THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" 18 # AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE 19 # IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE 20 # DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE 21 # FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL 22 # DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR 23 # SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER 24 # CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, 25 # OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE 26 # OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. 27 # 28 # END_ICS_COPYRIGHT8 **************************************** 29 30 #[ICS VERSION STRING: unknown] I removed line 1 - 30. As we have a LICENSE file in the top directory of the source code. 31 Name: opa-fm 32 Version: 10.9.1.1 33 Release: 1%{?dist} 34 %if 0%{?rhel} 35 Epoch: 1 36 %endif I deleted line 34-36, as rhelX will not use this spec file. 37 Summary: Intel Omni-Path Fabric Management Software 38 39 License: BSD 40 Url: https://github.com/intel/opa-fm 41 # tarball created by: 42 # git clone https://github.com/01org/opa-fm.git line 42 uses a outdated url. 43 # cd opa-fm 44 # tar czf opa-fm.tar.gz --exclude-cvs . I deleted line 41-44, as I have to rename the source tarball. See previous comment for explanation. 45 Source0: %{name}.tar.gz 46 ExclusiveArch: x86_64 47 # The Intel OPA product line is only available on x86_64 platforms at this time. 48 49 Requires: rdma line 49 is no longer needed. 50 51 BuildRequires: expat-devel, rdma-core-devel, openssl-devel 52 BuildRequires: gcc 53 BuildRequires: gcc-c++ 54 BuildRequires: python-unversioned-command 55 BuildRequires: zlib-devel 56 57 BuildRequires: systemd %{?systemd_requires} %{?BuildRequires} 58 Requires: systemd %{?systemd_requires} 59 Requires: libibumad%{?_isa}, libibverbs%{?_isa}, rdma, expat%{?_isa}, libhfi1, openssl%{?_isa} line 57-59 had been deleted, only libhfi1 and %{?systemd_requires} kept. The rpm building tool will handle those dependency for us. So, no need to explicitly state them. 60 61 %description 62 The %{name} contains Intel Omni-Path fabric management applications. This replace %{name} in line 62 with opa-fm. 63 includes: the Subnet Manager, Baseboard Manager, Performance Manager, 64 Fabric Executive, and some fabric management tools. 65 IFSComponent: FM 10.9.1.1.1%{?dist} remove %{dist} in line 65. 66 67 %prep 68 %setup -q -c 69 70 %build 71 cd Esm 72 OPA_FEATURE_SET= ./fmbuild $BUILD_ARGS line 71 and 72 use hardcode compiler flags. I fixed it. 73 74 %install 75 BUILDDIR=%{_builddir} DESTDIR=%{buildroot} LIBDIR=%{_libdir} RPM_INS=n ./Esm/fm_install.sh 76 mkdir -p %{buildroot}/%{_localstatedir}/usr/lib/opa-fm/ 77 78 %post 79 if [ $1 = 1 ]; then 80 if [ $(command -v systemctl) ]; then 81 /bin/systemctl daemon-reload >/dev/null 2>&1 || : 82 else 83 /sbin/chkconfig --add opafm 84 fi 85 fi 86 %preun 87 if [ $1 = 1 ] || [ $1 = 0 ]; then 88 if [ $(command -v systemctl) ]; then 89 systemctl stop opafm.service >/dev/null 2>&1 || : 90 else 91 /sbin/chkconfig --del opafm 92 fi 93 fi 94 line 78 - 94 is unnecessary complex, as fedora no longer use init scripts. I fix this too. 95 %files 96 %doc Esm/README 97 I add the LINCENSE file. 98 /usr/lib/systemd/system/opafm.service 99 %config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/opa-fm/opafm.xml 100 %config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/opa-fm/opafm_pp.xml 101 %{_sysconfdir}/opa-fm/vfs 102 %{_sysconfdir}/opa-fm/dgs 103 /usr/lib/opa-fm/bin/* 104 /usr/lib/opa-fm/runtime/* 105 /usr/share/opa-fm/* 106 %{_sbindir}/opafmcmd 107 %{_sbindir}/opafmcmdall 108 %{_sbindir}/opafmconfigpp 109 %{_sbindir}/opafmvf 110 %{_mandir}/man8/* I remove hardcode path. 111 112 %changelog 113 * Mon Feb 26 2018 Jijun Wang <jijun.wang> - 10.8.0.0 114 - Added epoch for RHEL 115 - Added component information in description 116 * Thu Oct 09 2014 Kaike Wan <kaike.wan> - 10.0.0.0-177 117 - Initial version 118 119 I replace the changelog. Please conside use this updated spec file: http://people.redhat.com/honli/opa-fm-10.9.1.1-1-review/opa-fm.spec I also upload renamed tarball and a dummy manpage patch in here: http://people.redhat.com/honli/opa-fm-10.9.1.1-1-review/
Fedora review result of spec and tarball, which had been upload to http://people.redhat.com/honli/opa-fm-10.9.1.1-1-review/ NOTE: The fedora-review tool of fedora-rawhide distro always failed. So, I run fedora-review with fedora-29 distro. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: opa-fm-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/opa- <deleted many lines> honli: OK, opa-fm-debugsource should include all source files, which include the header files. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: BUILDSTDERR: warning: File listed twice: /etc/opa-fm/opafm.xml honli: OK, confirmed there are two copies of opafm.xml in different directories. opa-fm-10.9.1.1-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm]$ find | grep opafm.xml ./etc/opa-fm/opafm.xml ./usr/share/opa-fm/opafm.xml - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: These BR are not needed: gcc gcc-c++ See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 honli: OK, as gcc/gcc-c++ is no longer the default compiler for fedora rpm building system. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules. honli: OK, no kernel modules. [ ]: Package contains no static executables. honli: OK, no static executables. review-opa-fm]$ find rpms-unpacked/opa-fm-10.9.1.1-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm/ -type f | xargs file | grep static | wc 0 0 0 [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. honli: OK, see the BSD LICENSE file in top directory. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License GNU General Public License (v2)", "Unknown or generated". 123 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/hli/review/review-opa-fm/licensecheck.txt honli: OK, see the BSD LICENSE file in top directory. [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. honli: OK review-opa-fm]$ rpm -qpl results/opa-fm-10.9.1.1-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm | grep -i license /usr/share/licenses/opa-fm /usr/share/licenses/opa-fm/LICENSE [ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/.build- (libwayland-server, vim-common, python3-tornado, qt5-qtdeclarative, honli: OK, saft to ignore this. kf5-kiconthemes, lksctp-tools, python2-gssapi, python3-libdnf, cantor, evolution, pulseaudio-module-bluetooth, hdf5, SuperLU, alliance-libs, kdelibs3, pipewire, python36, libnl3-cli, binutils) [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. honli: OK, default fedora comiler flags used after we removed the hardcode compiler flags. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. honli: OK, no bundled libraries. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. honli: OK [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. honli: OK [ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. honli: OK, as not a GUI application. [ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package honli: OK, no development files. [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. honli: OK, only a README in %doc [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). honli: OK [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. honli: OK [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. honli: OK [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. honli: OK [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. honli: OK, it is a new package. It is not a rename. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. honli: OK [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. honli: OK [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. honli: OK, systemd service files included. [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. honli: OK [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. honli: OK. Use ExclusiveArch as it x64 only package. [ ]: 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. honli: OK [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines honli: OK [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 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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. honli: OK, see the LICENSE file in top directory of source code [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). honli:OK [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in opa-fm- debuginfo , opa-fm-debugsource honli: OK [ ]: Package functions as described. honli: OK [ ]: Latest version is packaged. honli: OK, yes, source tarball was generated from latest upstream repo. [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. honli: OK, the license file from upstream repo. [ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. honli: OK, manpage-format.patch removes undefined manpage macro. This dummy patch should be applied in upstream repo. [ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. honli: OK [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. honli: OK, no %check, as opa-fm needs specific hardware to run. Most building systems unlikely has OPA hardware. [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. honli: OK [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]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: opa-fm-10.9.1.1-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm opa-fm-debuginfo-10.9.1.1-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm opa-fm-debugsource-10.9.1.1-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm opa-fm-10.9.1.1-1.fc29.src.rpm opa-fm.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libhfi1 honli: OK, libhfi1 is the userspace driver, without it opa-fm will fail to start. opa-fm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary opafmconfigpp opa-fm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary opafmvf honli: OK, will notify upstream to create manpages for those two tools. opa-fm.src:64: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/opa-fm honli: OK opa-fm.src: W: invalid-url Source0: opa-fm-10.9.1.1.tar.gz honli: OK, tarball was generated from upstream repo. 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: opa-fm-debuginfo-10.9.1.1-1.fc29.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 honli: OK, /usr/bin/python is only used in building opa-fm. No python scripts in the opa-fm-10.9.1.1-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm opa-fm.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libhfi1 opa-fm.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/intel/opa-fm <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> opa-fm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary opafmconfigpp opa-fm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary opafmvf honli: OK, duplicated warning, see previous comments. opa-fm-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/intel/opa-fm <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> opa-fm-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/intel/opa-fm <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> honli: OK, https://github.com/intel/opa-fm is valid. 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings. Requires -------- opa-fm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /usr/bin/bash /usr/bin/sh config(opa-fm) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.1.1()(64bit) libcrypto.so.1.1(OPENSSL_1_1_0)(64bit) libexpat.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgomp.so.1()(64bit) libgomp.so.1(GOMP_4.0)(64bit) libgomp.so.1(OMP_1.0)(64bit) libhfi1 libibumad.so.3()(64bit) libibumad.so.3(IBUMAD_1.0)(64bit) libibverbs.so.1()(64bit) libibverbs.so.1(IBVERBS_1.0)(64bit) libibverbs.so.1(IBVERBS_1.1)(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libssl.so.1.1()(64bit) libssl.so.1.1(OPENSSL_1_1_0)(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) libz.so.1(ZLIB_1.2.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) systemd opa-fm-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): opa-fm-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- opa-fm: config(opa-fm) opa-fm opa-fm(x86-64) opa-fm-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) opa-fm-debuginfo opa-fm-debuginfo(x86-64) opa-fm-debugsource: opa-fm-debugsource opa-fm-debugsource(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- Using local file /home/hli/review/opa-fm-10.9.1.1.tar.gz as upstream file:///home/hli/review/opa-fm-10.9.1.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9a88f8794346f56e20b03897dd1cc9dd0660c08bb4d880580f25cbb6f20f3989 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9a88f8794346f56e20b03897dd1cc9dd0660c08bb4d880580f25cbb6f20f3989 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n opa-fm Buildroot used: fedora-29-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
Hi, Scott Please see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process for next step.
Package approved with updated spec and src package.
Hi, Scott https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/11429 You are a packager now. If nobody re-open this ticket when you back to work on this. Please submit a new request. BTW, we will be co-maintainers for opa-fm.
It seems that the information has been provided by the previous comment.
Stalled review
This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script. The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month. As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it.