Bug 2188047 - Review Request: srpc - An enterprise-level RPC system
Summary: Review Request: srpc - An enterprise-level RPC system
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Linux
unspecified
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Sandro Mani
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2023-04-19 15:12 UTC by Benson Muite
Modified: 2023-05-05 12:10 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2023-05-05 12:10:07 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
manisandro: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Benson Muite 2023-04-19 15:12:52 UTC

Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/srpc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05806081-srpc/srpc.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/srpc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05806081-srpc/srpc-0.10.0-1.fc39.src.rpm

Description:
SRPC is an enterprise-level RPC system used by almost all online services
in Sogou. It handles tens of billions of requests every day, covering
searches, recommendations, advertising system, and other types of services.

Fedora Account Username: fed500

Comment 1 Sandro Mani 2023-04-21 07:14:37 UTC
Approved, but please review the following before importing:

- Possibly add a comment why the %autorelease is needed?
- Adjust the changelog (currently states John Doe <packager>)
- Does %ctest work rather than "make check"?


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]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
     BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[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.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[!]: 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 20480 bytes in 1 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 must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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 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]: 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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[?]: Package functions as described.
[?]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: 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.
[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.
[!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
     Note: %define requiring justification: %define autorelease(e:s:pb:n)
     %{?-p:0.}%{lua:
[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.

===== 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: srpc-0.10.0-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm
          srpc-devel-0.10.0-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm
          srpc-debuginfo-0.10.0-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm
          srpc-debugsource-0.10.0-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm
          srpc-0.10.0-1.fc39.src.rpm
======================================================================================= rpmlint session starts ======================================================================================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpl7zrds07')]
checks: 31, packages: 5

srpc.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary srpc_generator
srpc-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
======================================================== 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.0 s =======================================================




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: srpc-debuginfo-0.10.0-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm
======================================================================================= rpmlint session starts ======================================================================================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp2mdl5jct')]
checks: 31, packages: 1

======================================================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s =======================================================





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 31, packages: 4

srpc.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary srpc_generator
srpc-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.2 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/sogou/srpc/archive/v0.10.0/srpc-v0.10.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 03786ddeaf574d9ab6b3810ebb4b322b67b05bd23802b2931616fd10ad276f0e
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 03786ddeaf574d9ab6b3810ebb4b322b67b05bd23802b2931616fd10ad276f0e


Requires
--------
srpc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    glibc
    ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    liblz4.so.1()(64bit)
    libprotobuf.so.30()(64bit)
    libsnappy.so.1()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.7)(64bit)
    libworkflow.so.0()(64bit)
    libz.so.1()(64bit)
    libz.so.1(ZLIB_1.2.0)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

srpc-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    cmake-filesystem(x86-64)
    libsrpc.so.0()(64bit)
    srpc(x86-64)

srpc-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

srpc-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
srpc:
    libsrpc.so.0()(64bit)
    srpc
    srpc(x86-64)

srpc-devel:
    cmake(srpc)
    srpc-devel
    srpc-devel(x86-64)

srpc-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    libsrpc.so.0.10.0-0.10.0-1.fc39.x86_64.debug()(64bit)
    srpc-debuginfo
    srpc-debuginfo(x86-64)

srpc-debugsource:
    srpc-debugsource
    srpc-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2188047
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: fonts, Haskell, Python, Ocaml, R, PHP, Java, SugarActivity, Perl
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Comment 2 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 2023-05-05 09:12:55 UTC
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/srpc

Comment 3 Benson Muite 2023-05-05 09:21:01 UTC
Thanks for the review. ctest macro does not work in this case. Used manual changelog entries.


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