Spec URL: https://junghans.fedorapeople.org/libcircle.spec SRPM URL: https://junghans.fedorapeople.org/libcircle-0.2.1-1.fc27.rc1.src.rpm Description: A simple interface for processing workloads using an automatically distributed global queue. Fedora Account System Username: junghans Task ID: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=23150025
Looking at this now. A few starting comments: - Maybe use http://hpc.github.io/libcircle/ as the URL? - since it's a release candidate, you should use the pre-release versioning scheme where the release is < 1: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Versioning#Prerelease_versions - I'll look at other packagers, but do you think the devel package should be broken up into devel-mpich and devel-openmpi? - you should include the docs generated with doxygen, in a separate subpackage if necessary. - license etc need to be included I'll do a full review soon too. Cheers! Ankur
(In reply to Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) from comment #1) > Looking at this now. A few starting comments: > > - Maybe use http://hpc.github.io/libcircle/ as the URL? Good point, done! > - since it's a release candidate, you should use the pre-release versioning > scheme where the release is < 1: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Versioning#Prerelease_versions Done. > - I'll look at other packagers, but do you think the devel package should be > broken up into devel-mpich and devel-openmpi? Done. > - you should include the docs generated with doxygen, in a separate > subpackage if necessary. Done. > - license etc need to be included Done. Spec URL: https://junghans.fedorapeople.org/libcircle.spec SRPM URL: https://junghans.fedorapeople.org/libcircle-0.2.1-0.2rc1.fc27.src.rpm
Ping @ FranciscoD
Mostly good, a few minor issues: - the build logs show errors about `dot` not being available while doc generation. You should include it in the BR and re-build to check that docs are built correctly. - Please use arch-specific requires. - ldconfig must be run for packages with shared libraries: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Shared_Libraries 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]: 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. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (2 clause)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "BSD (3 clause)". 39 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/asinha/1513733-libcircle/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/include/mpich-x86_64, /usr/lib64/openmpi/lib, /usr/lib64/mpich, /usr/include/openmpi-x86_64, /usr/lib64/mpich/lib, /usr/lib64/openmpi/lib/pkgconfig, /usr/lib64/mpich/lib/pkgconfig, /usr/lib64/openmpi These are owned by openmpi/mpich packages, so this looks OK. [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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 624640 bytes in 148 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 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: [-]: 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). [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libcircle-openmpi , libcircle-mpich , libcircle-openmpi-devel , libcircle-mpich-devel , libcircle-debuginfo Please use arch-specific requires. [?]: Package functions as described. Not been able to test this yet. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [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. [x]: %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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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 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: libcircle-openmpi-0.2.1-0.2rc1.fc26.x86_64.rpm libcircle-mpich-0.2.1-0.2rc1.fc26.x86_64.rpm libcircle-openmpi-devel-0.2.1-0.2rc1.fc26.x86_64.rpm libcircle-mpich-devel-0.2.1-0.2rc1.fc26.x86_64.rpm libcircle-debuginfo-0.2.1-0.2rc1.fc26.x86_64.rpm libcircle-0.2.1-0.2rc1.fc26.src.rpm libcircle-openmpi.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/openmpi/lib/libcircle.so.2.0.0 exit.5 libcircle-openmpi.x86_64: W: no-documentation libcircle-openmpi.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib64/openmpi/lib/libcircle.so.2.0.0 libcircle-openmpi.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib64/openmpi/lib/libcircle.so.2.0.0 libcircle-mpich.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/mpich/lib/libcircle.so.2.0.0 exit.5 libcircle-mpich.x86_64: W: no-documentation libcircle-mpich.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib64/mpich/lib/libcircle.so.2.0.0 libcircle-mpich.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib64/mpich/lib/libcircle.so.2.0.0 libcircle-openmpi-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ibcircle -> encircle, circle libcircle-openmpi-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib libcircle-openmpi-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libcircle-mpich-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ibcircle -> encircle, circle libcircle-mpich-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib libcircle.src:75: W: configure-without-libdir-spec 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 10 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libcircle-debuginfo-0.2.1-0.2rc1.fc26.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 libcircle-mpich.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://hpc.github.io/libcircle/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> libcircle-mpich.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/mpich/lib/libcircle.so.2.0.0 exit.5 libcircle-mpich.x86_64: W: no-documentation libcircle-mpich.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib64/mpich/lib/libcircle.so.2.0.0 libcircle-mpich.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib64/mpich/lib/libcircle.so.2.0.0 libcircle-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://hpc.github.io/libcircle/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> libcircle-openmpi.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://hpc.github.io/libcircle/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> libcircle-openmpi.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/openmpi/lib/libcircle.so.2.0.0 exit.5 libcircle-openmpi.x86_64: W: no-documentation libcircle-openmpi.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib64/openmpi/lib/libcircle.so.2.0.0 libcircle-openmpi.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib64/openmpi/lib/libcircle.so.2.0.0 libcircle-openmpi-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ibcircle -> encircle, circle libcircle-openmpi-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://hpc.github.io/libcircle/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> libcircle-openmpi-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib libcircle-openmpi-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libcircle-mpich-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ibcircle -> encircle, circle libcircle-mpich-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://hpc.github.io/libcircle/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> libcircle-mpich-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 14 warnings. Requires -------- libcircle-mpich (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libcircle.so.2()(64bit)(mpich-x86_64) libmpi.so.12()(64bit)(mpich-x86_64) rtld(GNU_HASH) libcircle-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libcircle-openmpi (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libcircle.so.2()(64bit)(openmpi-x86_64) libmpi.so.20()(64bit)(openmpi-x86_64) rtld(GNU_HASH) libcircle-openmpi-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libcircle-openmpi libcircle.so.2()(64bit)(openmpi-x86_64) libcircle-mpich-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libcircle-mpich libcircle.so.2()(64bit)(mpich-x86_64) Provides -------- libcircle-mpich: libcircle-mpich libcircle-mpich(x86-64) libcircle.so.2()(64bit)(mpich-x86_64) libcircle-debuginfo: libcircle-debuginfo libcircle-debuginfo(x86-64) libcircle-openmpi: libcircle-openmpi libcircle-openmpi(x86-64) libcircle.so.2()(64bit)(openmpi-x86_64) libcircle-openmpi-devel: libcircle-openmpi-devel libcircle-openmpi-devel(x86-64) libcircle-mpich-devel: libcircle-mpich-devel libcircle-mpich-devel(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/hpc/libcircle/releases/download/0.2.1-rc.1/libcircle-0.2.1-rc.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5747f91cf4417023304dcc92fd07e3617ac712ca1eeb698880979bbca3f54865 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5747f91cf4417023304dcc92fd07e3617ac712ca1eeb698880979bbca3f54865 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1513733 Buildroot used: fedora-26-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 for the review! (In reply to Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) from comment #4) > Mostly good, a few minor issues: > > - the build logs show errors about `dot` not being available while doc > generation. You should include it in the BR and re-build to check that docs > are built correctly. Good catch, thanks, fixed. > - Please use arch-specific requires. Fixed. > - ldconfig must be run for packages with shared libraries: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Shared_Libraries Not needed for mpi-only packages (see #559009), I also added a comment to the spec files: # MPI subpackages don't need the ldconfig magic. They are hidden by # default, in MPI back-end-specific directory, and only show to the # user after the relevant environment module has been loaded. # rpmlint will report that as errors, but it is fine. Spec URL: https://junghans.fedorapeople.org/libcircle.spec SRPM URL: https://junghans.fedorapeople.org/libcircle-0.2.1-0.3rc1.fc27.src.rpm
That looks good to me. XXX APPROVED XXX Cheers!
Hi Christoph, Happy new year! When you have a few cycles to spare, please proceed with the SCM requests as documented here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/New_package_process_for_existing_contributors Cheers!
(In reply to Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) from comment #7) > When you have a few cycles to spare, please proceed with the SCM requests as > documented here: I wasn't really planning to package it for anything, but f28, however f27 doesn't hurt I guess.
libcircle-0.2.1-0.3rc1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-0975aa7ad1
Ah - I only said so because I didn't see a message notifying us of a completed SCM request like this one: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1402416#c4 Anyway, thanks!
(In reply to Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) from comment #10) > Ah - I only said so because I didn't see a message notifying us of a > completed SCM request like this one: Yeah, it must have gotten lost in the last big infrastructure update move.
libcircle-0.2.1-0.3rc1.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-2018-0975aa7ad1
libcircle-0.2.1-0.3rc1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.