Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/edenhill/librdkafka/master/packaging/rpm/librdkafka.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/dcode/rocknsm/epel-7-x86_64/00472037-librdkafka/librdkafka-0.9.2-1.el7.centos.src.rpm Description: librdkafka is the C/C++ client library implementation of the Apache Kafka protocol, containing both Producer and Consumer support. Fedora Account System Username: dcode This is my first package submission, so I need a sponsor. I am not the upstream maintainer, but I frequently use, build, and develop with this package for my project ROCK NSM (http://rocknsm.io). The SPEC file requires definition of the macros __version and __release, which I defined in my SRPM that I used for my build for EL7 and F25 (https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/dcode/rocknsm/build/472037/). Ultimately, my goal is to get this into EPEL, but most of the packages that I use will work just fine on Fedora too, so I'll submit parallel builds going forward.
I'm interested in having librdkafka in Fedora and EPEL. I'm no sponsor so I can't sponsor you, but I can help you with this package. When doing a review, the reviewers use fedora-review -b which automates some tasks. F-R downloads the files from the urls in the bugreport, builds the packge and runs some tests. Please make sure "fedora-review -b 1390595" builds correctly. rpmlint might be helpful too. To become sponsored, you will have to do a couple unofficial reviews to show you understand the package guidelines [1]. You can post the urls to those reviews here. Some comments: version/release needs to be defined in the uploaded specfile. Group tag is deprecated, remove it unless you still want to support EL5 (which will EOL soon). License tag must match the short license as listed in [2] Source needs to specify the upstream source url. [3] BuildRoot tag is deprecated (unless EL5 support) description needs to be wrapped at 80 chars requires for rhel >=7 is openssl-libs, I would expect this to be the same for Fedora (didn't check) %clean is deprecated don't rm -rf %{buildroot} in %install %build you will probably want to define CFLAGS='%{optflags} to have all default options and hardening. %doc, put license files in %license, not %doc. Why is the permission set to 444 in %files? [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#SoftwareLicenses [3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL?rd=Packaging/SourceURL
There is another finished review for this package: 1394275, so this review can be closed. I add that reviewed package into the fedora repository, but not into EPEL. librdkafka will most likely be in next RHEL7.
(In reply to Radovan Sroka from comment #2) > There is another finished review for this package: 1394275, so this review > can be closed. I add that reviewed package into the fedora repository, but > not into EPEL. librdkafka will most likely be in next RHEL7. Good to hear. With "next" do you mean current 7.3 beta or next 7.4? If it will be 7.4 it would be nice if EPEL7 would provide it for the time being.
Radovan, thanks for the update. That review was submitted after I submitted this one. I do need this package in EPEL if possible until it is included upstream. There are other packages that I'd like to submit but they depend on librdkafka.
I advise comparing the spec files for the two packages. This one contains a multitude of packaging mistakes. It would have needed a lot of work to get it through the review process. > When doing a review, the reviewers use fedora-review -b > which automates some tasks. Packagers ought to do that, too. "fedora-review -b 1390595" would try to retrieve the latest spec file and src.rpm package from this ticket, perform local test builds and run lots of checks on the result. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1394275 ***