Spec URL: https://github.com/milvus-io/milvus/releases/download/v2.0.0-testing-20220215/milvus.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/milvus-io/milvus/releases/download/v2.0.0-testing-20220215/milvus-2.0.0-1.el7.src.rpm RPM URL: https://github.com/milvus-io/milvus/releases/download/v2.0.0-testing-20220215/milvus-2.0.0-1.el7.x86_64.rpm Description: Milvus is an open-source vector database for unstructures data. official website: https://milvus.io/ Github: https://github.com/milvus-io/milvus Fedora Account System Username: yunmei As this is the first package my team (Milvus upstream maintainers) and I attempt to publish on EPEL, we will need a sponsor from the community to do so.
Due to the dependency versions don’t meet my needs in EPEL7 (I need cmake 3.18, but the latest version of cmake in EPEL7 is 3.17, boost and openblas as well), I rework the Milvus package in EPEL8 based on the comments I recived from epel-devel mailing list. Spec: https://github.com/milvus-io/milvus/releases/download/v2.0.0-testing-20220222/milvus.spec SRPM: https://github.com/milvus-io/milvus/releases/download/v2.0.0-testing-20220222/milvus-2.0.0-1.el8.src.rpm
Looking at the spec file, can third party installs be done as RPMs? In particular Apache Arrow, RocksDB, YAMLCPP, protobuf-cpp and OpenTracing. Some of these likely already exist in repositories, and it does not seem like your build requires many patches. Apache Arrow does release its own RPMs. Can try to make it directly available on COPR/Koji if that would be helpful.
Libarrow is being added https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2054708
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #2) > Looking at the spec file, can third party installs be done as RPMs? In > particular Apache Arrow, RocksDB, YAMLCPP, protobuf-cpp and OpenTracing. > Some of these likely already exist in repositories, and it does not seem > like your build requires many patches. Apache Arrow does release its own > RPMs. Can try to make it directly available on COPR/Koji if that would be > helpful. Thanks for your advice. For the third parties required by milvus, some of them indeed exist in repositories, but the versions of these don't seem to meet my requirements And I have builded milvus package on corp.
Rebuild Milvus package on Corp. Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/yunmei/Milvus/centos-stream-8-x86_64/03542552-milvus/milvus.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/yunmei/Milvus/centos-stream-8-x86_64/03542552-milvus/milvus-2.0.0-1.el8.src.rpm
I have used Fedora-review to review my package, and did some update. Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/yunmei/Milvus/centos-stream-8-x86_64/03595179-milvus/milvus-2.0.0-1.el8.x86_64.rpm SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/yunmei/Milvus/centos-stream-8-x86_64/03595179-milvus/milvus-2.0.0-1.el8.src.rpm
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Cannot run licensecheck: Command 'licensecheck -r /var/lib/mock/centos-stream-8-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/milvus- rpm-2.0.0' returned non-zero exit status 127. [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/systemd(systemd), /usr/lib/systemd/system(systemd, plymouth) [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: 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 [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ ]: 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 40960 bytes in 1 files. [ ]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [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]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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]: systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files. Note: Systemd service file(s) in milvus [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. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Rpmlint ------- Checking: milvus-2.0.0-1.el8.x86_64.rpm milvus-debuginfo-2.0.0-1.el8.x86_64.rpm milvus-2.0.0-1.el8.src.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: milvus-debuginfo-2.0.0-1.el8.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/milvus-io/milvus-rpm/archive/refs/tags/v2.0.0.tar.gz#/milvus-2.0.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6e274ec00dc3055e2b710cab687e941f74757c18db42e959418ef510ac419c49 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6e274ec00dc3055e2b710cab687e941f74757c18db42e959418ef510ac419c49 Requires -------- milvus (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/bash /bin/sh config(milvus) ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libfiu.so.0()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.4)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.2.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.3.0)(64bit) libgfortran.so.5()(64bit) libgfortran.so.5(GFORTRAN_8)(64bit) libgomp.so.1()(64bit) libgomp.so.1(GOMP_1.0)(64bit) libgomp.so.1(GOMP_2.0)(64bit) libgomp.so.1(GOMP_4.0)(64bit) libgomp.so.1(OMP_1.0)(64bit) libgomp.so.1(OMP_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libmilvus_indexbuilder.so.1()(64bit) libmilvus_segcore.so.1()(64bit) libngt.so.1()(64bit) libopenblas.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libquadmath.so.0()(64bit) libquadmath.so.0(QUADMATH_1.0)(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.11)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.7)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libtbb.so.2()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) milvus-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- milvus: config(milvus) libfiu.so.0()(64bit) libgfortran.so.5()(64bit) libgfortran.so.5(GFORTRAN_8)(64bit) libgfortran.so.5(GFORTRAN_C99_8)(64bit) libgfortran.so.5(GFORTRAN_F2C_8)(64bit) libmilvus_indexbuilder.so.1()(64bit) libmilvus_segcore.so.1()(64bit) libngt.so.1()(64bit) libopenblas.so.0()(64bit) libtbb.so.2()(64bit) milvus milvus(x86-64) milvus-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) milvus-debuginfo milvus-debuginfo(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (edcca61) last change: 2022-01-01 Command line :try-fedora-review --name milvus-2.0.0-1.el8.src.rpm --rpm-spe -m /etc/mock/centos-stream-8-x86_64.cfg Buildroot used: centos-stream-8-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: C/C++, Perl, PHP, Python, Ruby, Java, Ocaml, Haskell, R, fonts, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
I have two questions for Fedora-review: The Fedora-review shows that Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages, dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/systemd(systemd), /usr/lib/systemd/system(systemd, plymouth), because i set the %dir /usr/lib/systemd and %dir /usr/lib/systemd/system in the spec file. But if I do not set this, it will show: No known owner of /usr/lib/systemd/system, /usr/lib/systemd. I set the field %license in my sep file, but the feodra-review show cannot run licensecheck,I am not sure how I am supposed to deal with this. Is this related to the version of fedora-review I installed? I installed it from the latest source code, https://pagure.io/FedoraReview. Or maybe it has to do with the mock buildroot I'm using, I used centos-stream-8-x86_64.
Still many bundled external packages. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#bundling It may be helpful to review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2054708 to indicate changes that would be useful to avoid bundling Arrow in this package. Similarly, Gfortran, TBB and OpenBLAS are already packaged.
I did some update about the bundled external packages. Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/yunmei/Milvus/centos-stream-8-x86_64/04341981-milvus/milvus.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/yunmei/Milvus/centos-stream-8-x86_64/04341981-milvus/milvus-2.0.0-1.el8.src.rpm
I don't see a justification here for this to be an EPEL-only package. It should be added to Fedora first and then branched for EPEL.
a) Is there a reason it will not build on aarch64? b) Might such packages be better as Software collections? Arrow also has many dependencies that would make packaging it for Cent OS 7 problematic. For more information on software collections see https://www.softwarecollections.org/en/
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.