Spec URL: http://people.apache.org/dist/incubator/qpid/M1-incubating/cpp/qpidc.spec SRPM URL: http://people.apache.org/dist/incubator/qpid/M1-incubating/cpp/qpidc-0.1-1.src.rpm Description: First time submitter, need a sponsor. Background: C++ implementation of the AMQP messaging specification (http://amqp.org/) from Apache Qpid project (http://incubator.apache.org/qpid). This is the upstream for the Red Hat Messaging project hosted at https://etp.108.redhat.com. I will submit an RPM for 108 stuff shortly. %description Run-time libraries for AMQP client applications developed using Qpid C++. Clients exchange messages with an AMQP message broker using the AMQP protocol. %description devel Libraries, header files and documentation for developing AMQP clients in C++ using Qpid. Qpid implements the AMQP messaging specification. %description -n qpidd A message broker daemon that receives stores and routes messages using the open AMQP messaging protocol.
A couple of comments: This package has rpath problems: E: qpidd binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/sbin/qpidd ['/usr/lib64'] Loads of undefined-non-weak-symbol complaints from the installed package: W: qpidc undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libqpidclient.so.0.1.0 _ZTIN4qpid7framing11BodyHandlerE W: qpidc undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libqpidclient.so.0.1.0 _ZTIN4qpid3sys8RunnableE W: qpidc undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libqpidclient.so.0.1.0 _ZNK4qpid7framing13AMQMethodBody6encodeERNS0_6BufferE and 161 others. Picking nits, I know, but: BuildReqires: cppunit is redundant. Requires: apr is also redundant; rpm finds the libapr-1.so.0 dependency automatically. Oddly, it doesn't find the boost dependency.
Thanks for the feedback. FYI, I've fixed the undefined-non-weak-symbol problem with this patch: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-qpid-dev/200701.mbox/%3c87ps9tz3ko.fsf@rho.meyering.net%3e
Applied to https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/qpid/trunk/qpid/cpp at r493151
Updaed the SRPM & spec URLs with Jim's fixes for review.
Increased the release number and published the new SRPM at: http://people.apache.org/dist/incubator/qpid/M1-incubating/cpp/qpidc-0.1-2.src.rpm No changes since comment #4 except to increase the relase number and add a changelog note.
- spec still contains redundant "BuildRequires: cppunit" - Unnecessarily wasting time on building static libs => %configure --disable-static - rpmlint: W: qpidc incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1-1 0.1-2 => Probably an oversight. E: qpidc script-without-shebang /usr/share/doc/qpidc-0.1/LICENSE.txt => chmod -x LICENSE.txt in %prep.
Hi Ralf, Thanks again for the quick feedback. I've posted a patch here: http://www.nabble.com/qpidc-RPM-feedback-t3080445.html
Applied Jims patch and fixed other issues mentioned in the mail http://www.nabble.com/qpidc-RPM-feedback-t3080445.html removed .txt extensions, fixed svn ignores etc. Updated spec, tarballs and SRPM at: http://people.apache.org/dist/incubator/qpid/M1-incubating/cpp/
Ralf or Jason, do you want to continue this review, or you gave up?
(In reply to comment #9) > Ralf or Jason, do you want to continue this review, or you gave up? This review request simply got swept away and drowned in this tsunami of review mails. Technically, I recall me having wanted to investigate an issue I suspect this package to suffer from, but I haven't gotten around to it, yet.
OK, the issues I mentioned above don't seem to have actual side-effects: * Diffing the log of a mock-built against a user-built: ... -checking for java... no +checking for java... java checking for javac... no ... checking whether compiler accepts -Werror... no => Looks like a bug in the configure script to me. ... -checking dynamic linker characteristics... cat: ld.so.conf.d/*.conf: No such file or directory -GNU/Linux ld.so +checking dynamic linker characteristics... GNU/Linux ld.so => Probably a buggy configure. * Also I don't understand why libqpidbroker.so.0 exists at all. It's exclusively used by qpidd, there is no devel package associated to it, but ... let me presume upstream has reasons for doing so. None of them are show-stoppers. Remains one issue: * Source0: Should be an absolute URL. Provided you add this, consider this package APPROVED.
Hi Ralf, Thanks for the detailed feedback. The ld.so difference is due to the way libtool's AC_LIBTOOL_SYS_DYNAMIC_LINKER works when /etc/ld.so.conf contains a glob pattern that matches no file. In the mock-build environment, I'll bet that there are no *.conf files in /etc/ld.so.conf.d The java configure difference is probably because java was installed in your user-built environment, but not in the mock-built one. For qpidc, java is optional. Used if found, but no problem (just reduced build-time functionality) if not.
I've addressed all problems and put the new specs, tarballs and RPMs here: http://rhm.et.redhat.com/download/qpidc-0.1-4.src.rpm
Who will be the owners of this package? Do you already have Fedora Account System accounts? Have you requested cvsextras access? (I don't know you, so I hope we can talk a short bit sometime during Wednesday before sponsoring your membership.)
Main owner is myself, fedora account aconway. cvsextras requested, mailed wtogami directly with contact info to talk today.
we've "talked", and I too have requested cvsextras access. New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: qpidc Short Description: C++ implementation of AMQP messaging spec from Apache Qpid Owners: aconway, meyering Branches: FC-7 InitialCC:
Looks like Ralf approved this back in Comment #11, but didn't assign to himself.
Please add Nuno Santos <nsantos> as an owner of the qpidc package. He'll be helping to maintain it going forward.
done
Pardon the bugzilla spam. This package appears to have been approved, imported, and built. If that is the case, please close this bug RESOLVE -> NEXTRELEASE as documented in the package review process: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageReviewProcess?#head-df921556b35438a4c78b4b6a790151ea568e8f9e
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: qpidc New Branches: F-7 F-8 Please add branches to allow inclusion in F-7 updates and F-8 updates.
These branches already exist. What is your actual goal?
The goal is to get an updated version of qpidc in both F7-updates and F8-updates.