Bug 1499050 - Review Request: fastbit - bitmap columnar storage library
Summary: Review Request: fastbit - bitmap columnar storage library
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Robert-André Mauchin 🐧
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2017-10-05 23:14 UTC by Philip Kovacs
Modified: 2018-01-02 16:52 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2018-01-02 16:52:38 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
zebob.m: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Philip Kovacs 2017-10-05 23:14:53 UTC
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/pkovacs/fedora-fastbit/master/fastbit.spec
SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/pkfed/fastbit/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00617591-fastbit/fastbit-2.0.3-1.fc28.src.rpm
Description: 
FastBit is an open-source data processing library following the spirit of NoSQL
movement. It offers a set of searching functions supported by compressed bitmap
indexes. It treats user data in the column-oriented manner similar to
well-known database management systems such as Sybase IQ, MonetDB, and Vertica.
It is designed to accelerate user's data selection tasks without imposing undue
requirements.

Fedora Account System Username: pkfed

Latest Koji scratch build URL:  
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=22273009

I have run fedora-review locally and there are no fail markers.  rpmlint shows only one error:

useless-provides debuginfo(build-id)

and this appears to be due to rpmlint not being quite up-to-date with Fedora rawhide changes that add build-id's to the "provides" information in the debuginfo rpms.

See: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpmlint/issues/112

Comment 1 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2017-10-08 09:19:15 UTC
Hello,


There's a extremely trivial issue:

fastbit.src:30: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 8, tab: line 30)

There's a tab at the very end of line 30, please renove it.

Otherwise the package looks fine, it is accepted.



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.
[x]: 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]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[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: "BSD (3 clause)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "GPL (v2 or later)",
     "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 262 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/bob/packaging/review/fastbit/review-fastbit/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/java
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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.
[x]: 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.
[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 184320 bytes in 9 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 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

Maven:
[-]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including metadata) even
     when building with ant
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used

===== 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 fastbit-
     debuginfo , fastbit-debugsource
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: 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]: 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.

Java:
[ ]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI
     Note: fastbit subpackage is not noarch. Please verify manually
[ ]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.)

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: fastbit-2.0.3-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm
          fastbit-devel-2.0.3-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm
          fastbit-java-2.0.3-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm
          fastbit-debuginfo-2.0.3-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm
          fastbit-debugsource-2.0.3-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm
          fastbit-2.0.3-1.fc28.src.rpm
fastbit.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libfastbit.so.1.0.0 exit.5
fastbit.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ardea
fastbit.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fbmerge
fastbit.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ibis
fastbit.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rara
fastbit.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tcapi
fastbit.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary thula
fastbit.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tiapi
fastbit-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
fastbit-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
fastbit-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fastbit-config
fastbit-java.x86_64: W: no-documentation
fastbit-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation
fastbit.src:30: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 8, tab: line 30)
6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 14 warnings.

Comment 2 Philip Kovacs 2017-10-09 20:37:05 UTC
Great.  I made the change you noted and the rpmlint on the srpm is now clean:

$ rpmlint fastbit-2.0.3-1.fc28.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Comment 3 Gwyn Ciesla 2017-10-10 13:07:18 UTC
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fastbit

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2017-12-20 23:04:14 UTC
fastbit-2.0.3-2.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-57febe267d

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2017-12-21 20:26:51 UTC
fastbit-2.0.3-2.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 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-2017-57febe267d

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2018-01-02 16:52:38 UTC
fastbit-2.0.3-2.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.