Copr project latest build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/slegendr/test_staging/build/7260364/ Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/slegendr/test_staging/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07260364-vdo/vdo.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/slegendr/test_staging/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07260364-vdo/vdo-8.2.2.2-1.fc41.src.rpm Description: Virtual Data Optimizer (VDO) is a device mapper target that delivers block-level deduplication, compression, and thin provisioning. This package provides the user-space management tools for VDO. Fedora Account System Username: slegendr Link to successful Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=115890373 Additional Information: - This is my first Fedora package and as such, I will need a sponsor. - I have co-maintained the kmod-kvdo and vdo packages in CentOS/RHEL since September 2022 (https://gitlab.com/redhat/centos-stream/rpms/kmod-kvdo https://gitlab.com/redhat/centos-stream/rpms/vdo). - The kmod-kvdo kernel module has recently been accepted upstream as dm-vdo and has already been pulled into Fedora Rawhide. - Existing Fedora package maintainer Chung Chung (user ctwo0002) will be a co-maintainer of this package. - I will be on PTO April 8th through the 19th, delaying response time. Any urgent issues can be directed to vdo-internal.
This needs the "0001-fix-dmeventd-linking.patch" file, but looking at the CentOS 9 Stream source RPM, it's a one-line change, so it's pretty easy to extract the source directory, and make the edit, in order to construct the patch file: --------- $ cat SOURCES/0001-fix-dmeventd-linking.patch --- vdo-e7a687da9e25d563838a6d2f4ca5036c80033ceb/utils/vdo/Makefile.orig 2024-04-12 11:30:59.343166710 -0400 +++ vdo-e7a687da9e25d563838a6d2f4ca5036c80033ceb/utils/vdo/Makefile 2024-04-12 11:31:35.654166710 -0400 @@ -160,7 +160,7 @@ $(PROGS): $$@.o libvdo.a $(DEPLIBS) $(CC) $(LDFLAGS) $^ $(LDPRFLAGS) -o $@ vdoformat: LDPRFLAGS += "-lblkid" -vdodmeventd: LDPRFLAGS += "-ldevmapper-event" +vdodmeventd: LDPRFLAGS += -ldevmapper -ldevmapper-event ifneq ($(MAKECMDGOALS),clean) DEPSOURCES = $(wildcard *.c) --------- This patch file will need to be added to the main directory of the dist-git repository. (For locally running "mock --buildsrpm", the patch file is copied into the "SOURCES" directory.)
Please disregard the earlier comment; that was a testing error on my part. The patch in the linked source rpm above works, and builds, and results in a successful run of fedora-review. (Interestingly, the patch file that I created builds the package successfully, but running fedora-review with it results in an "Error: Cache-only enabled but no cache for 'fedora'" error from fedora-review. More reason to ignore the patch file I generated, but perhaps something to investigate later.)
Some notes: > - This is my first Fedora package and as such, I will need a sponsor. If you haven't got a sponsor yet, let's talk, as I am able to do so. > - I will be on PTO April 8th through the 19th, delaying response time. Any urgent issues can be directed to vdo-internal. This is absolutely not an acceptable statement to make. This is predicated on an assumption that only Red Hatters will be interacting in a review. All package reviews are public and intended to be communicated in a tracked manner for the purposes of understanding package evolution and for educating future packagers. In the future, please make every effort to avoid leveraging Red Hat-internal channels for Fedora work. Intiial spec review: > ## START: Set by rpmautospec > ## (rpmautospec version 0.6.3) > ## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease > %define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: > release_number = 1; > base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); > print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); > }%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} > ## END: Set by rpmautospec Drop this whole thing from your spec file. > %global commit e7a687da9e25d563838a6d2f4ca5036c80033ceb > %global gittag 8.2.2.2 > %global shortcommit %(c=%{commit}; echo ${c:0:7}) Drop all this and just set "Version: 8.2.2.2" instead. > Source0: %{url}/archive/%{commit}/%{name}-%{shortcommit}.tar.gz Replace "%{commit}" and "%{shortcommit}" with "%{version}" > Release: %autorelease Since you have a changelog section with changelog entries, you should not use "%autorelease" and instead should use the normal convention. > %setup -q -n %{name}-%{commit} > %patch 0001 -p1 You can replace this with "%autosetup -p1" > make %{?_smp_mflags} Use "%make_build" instead. > make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT INSTALLOWNER= name=%{name} \ > bindir=%{_bindir} defaultdocdir=%{_defaultdocdir} libexecdir=%{_libexecdir} \ > mandir=%{_mandir} presetdir=%{_presetdir} \ > python3_sitelib=/%{python3_sitelib} sysconfdir=%{_sysconfdir} \ > unitdir=%{_unitdir} Use the following instead: > %make_install INSTALLOWNER= name=%{name} \ > bindir=%{_bindir} defaultdocdir=%{_defaultdocdir} libexecdir=%{_libexecdir} \ > mandir=%{_mandir} presetdir=%{_presetdir} \ > python3_sitelib=/%{python3_sitelib} sysconfdir=%{_sysconfdir} \ > unitdir=%{_unitdir} (As an aside, seriously consider modernizing your Makefiles or switching to something like CMake or Meson, which can determine these settings for you automatically.) Additional spec notes: * The spec file formatting is wrong. The subpackages should be grouped together rather than split between the package build sections. A couple of examples of good spec file structures: * btrfs-progs: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/btrfs-progs/blob/rawhide/f/btrfs-progs.spec * bcachefs-progs: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/bcachefs-tools/blob/rawhide/f/bcachefs-tools.spec * You only need "ExcludeArch: i686" once, and it should be "ExcludeArch: %{ix86}".
Oh some more spec notes: > %{_mandir}/man8/vdostats.8.gz > %{_mandir}/man8/vdodmeventd.8.gz > %{_mandir}/man8/vdodumpconfig.8.gz > %{_mandir}/man8/vdoforcerebuild.8.gz > %{_mandir}/man8/vdoformat.8.gz > %{_mandir}/man8/vdosetuuid.8.gz Replace ".gz" with "*", as there is no guarantee that gzip compression (or even compression at all) will be used.
Err... > %dir %{_sysconfdir}/bash_completion.d > %{_sysconfdir}/bash_completion.d/vdostats This is the wrong place to install bash completion files. It should be installed into "%{bash_completions_dir}" Also, don't co-own the completions directory. > %license %{_defaultdocdir}/%{name}/COPYING The license should not be in the docdir, but instead in the licensedir... > %{_bindir}/adaptLVMVDO.sh This should not be here. Either this is a normal command style file (thus no .sh) or it is a script file that is intended to be sourced and doesn't belong here.
Thank you for the feedback. I am working on the updates.
Updates have been made based on the review comments. Thank you again for your feedback and for the spec file examples provided. Copr project latest build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/slegendr/test_staging/build/7396659/ Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/slegendr/test_staging/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07396659-vdo/vdo.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/slegendr/test_staging/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07396659-vdo/vdo-8.3.0.70-1.fc41.src.rpm Link to successful Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=117114964
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7396715 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2273535-vdo/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07396715-vdo/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Through additional testing I discovered that the patch file is no longer needed. As such, I have updated the spec file and package. Copr project latest build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/slegendr/test_staging/build/7427854/ Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/slegendr/test_staging/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07427854-vdo/vdo.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/slegendr/test_staging/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07427854-vdo/vdo-8.3.0.70-1.fc41.src.rpm Link to successful Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=117446739
Created attachment 2032241 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 7396715 to 7427863
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7427863 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2273535-vdo/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07427863-vdo/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Updates have been made based on additional review comments. Copr project latest build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/slegendr/test_staging/build/7429097/ Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/slegendr/test_staging/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07429097-vdo/vdo.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/slegendr/test_staging/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07429097-vdo/vdo-8.3.0.70-1.fc41.src.rpm Link to successful Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=117472204
Created attachment 2032332 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 7427863 to 7429115
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7429115 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2273535-vdo/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07429115-vdo/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1 and/or Public domain". 17 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bgurney/pkgreviews-vdo/review-vdo/licensecheck.txt [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. [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 14129 bytes in 3 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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 Perl: [-]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:. ===== 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 vdo- support [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: 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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %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]: 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. ===== 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: vdo-8.3.0.70-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm vdo-support-8.3.0.70-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm vdo-debuginfo-8.3.0.70-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm vdo-debugsource-8.3.0.70-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm vdo-8.3.0.70-1.fc41.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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/tmp0xvqjvm1')] checks: 32, packages: 5 vdo.src: E: spelling-error ('deduplication', '%description -l en_US deduplication -> reduplication, duplication, quadruplication') vdo.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('deduplication', '%description -l en_US deduplication -> reduplication, duplication, quadruplication') vdo-support.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('deduplication', '%description -l en_US deduplication -> reduplication, duplication, quadruplication') 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 0 warnings, 34 filtered, 3 badness; has taken 1.4 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: vdo-debuginfo-8.3.0.70-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm vdo-support-debuginfo-8.3.0.70-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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/tmpbcm77g7v')] checks: 32, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 38 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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: 32, packages: 5 vdo.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('deduplication', '%description -l en_US deduplication -> reduplication, duplication, quadruplication') vdo-support.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('deduplication', '%description -l en_US deduplication -> reduplication, duplication, quadruplication') 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings, 61 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 3.3 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/dm-vdo/vdo/archive/8.3.0.70/vdo-8.3.0.70.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7e920e30c487dcc858bcf565a1edcf6bc157376eee5f5bcd463346e46e7ead94 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7e920e30c487dcc858bcf565a1edcf6bc157376eee5f5bcd463346e46e7ead94 Requires -------- vdo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libblkid.so.1()(64bit) libblkid.so.1(BLKID_2.15)(64bit) libblkid.so.1(BLKID_2.17)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libdevmapper-event.so.1.02()(64bit) libdevmapper-event.so.1.02(Base)(64bit) libuuid.so.1()(64bit) libuuid.so.1(UUID_1.0)(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) vdo-support (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/bash libc.so.6()(64bit) libuuid libuuid.so.1()(64bit) libuuid.so.1(UUID_1.0)(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) vdo-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): vdo-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- vdo: vdo vdo(x86-64) vdo-support: vdo-support vdo-support(x86-64) vdo-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) vdo-debuginfo vdo-debuginfo(x86-64) vdo-debugsource: vdo-debugsource vdo-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n vdo Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Perl, Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: fonts, Java, R, SugarActivity, Python, PHP, Haskell, Ocaml Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
I'll approve this, with some notes: - We need to add "deduplication" to the rpmlint spelling database. - The "%check" is a "SHOULD" item, not a "MUST" item; at some point, a test that validates the contents of the package without risking a spurious failure needs to be added, but we're not there yet, and I don't think it should block the first Fedora build of this package. - This user tools package is designed to be used alongside the VDO kernel module, which was added to the Linux kernel in the 6.9 merge window. VDO only works on 64-bit CPU architectures, which is why vdospec has "ExcludeArch: %{ix86}". (Originally, VDO was only built for x86_64.)
Hello @slegendr, since this is your first Fedora package, you need to get sponsored by a package sponsor before it can be accepted. A sponsor is an experienced package maintainer who will guide you through the processes that you will follow and the tools that you will use as a future maintainer. A sponsor will also be there to answer your questions related to packaging. You can find all active sponsors here: https://docs.pagure.org/fedora-sponsors/ I created a sponsorship request for you: https://pagure.io/packager-sponsors/issue/657 Please take a look and make sure the information is correct. Thank you, and best of luck on your packaging journey. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
(In reply to Bryan Gurney from comment #16) [...] > - This user tools package is designed to be used alongside the VDO kernel > module, which was added to the Linux kernel in the 6.9 merge window. If it requires kernel 6.9 to work then there should be an explicit dependency added. Otherwise, someone will install it with an older kernel and wonder why it doesn't work.
(In reply to Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski from comment #18) > (In reply to Bryan Gurney from comment #16) > [...] > > - This user tools package is designed to be used alongside the VDO kernel > > module, which was added to the Linux kernel in the 6.9 merge window. > > If it requires kernel 6.9 to work then there should be an explicit > dependency added. > Otherwise, someone will install it with an older kernel and wonder why it > doesn't work. We don't want that. Instead, we should not introduce this package to stable releases, only Rawhide (which has kernel 6.9). Adding a kernel dependency makes it difficult to use with privileged containers and such.
I've sponsored Susan and I concur with Neal.
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #19) > (In reply to Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski from comment #18) > > (In reply to Bryan Gurney from comment #16) > > [...] > > > - This user tools package is designed to be used alongside the VDO kernel > > > module, which was added to the Linux kernel in the 6.9 merge window. > > > > If it requires kernel 6.9 to work then there should be an explicit > > dependency added. > > Otherwise, someone will install it with an older kernel and wonder why it > > doesn't work. > > We don't want that. Instead, we should not introduce this package to stable > releases, only Rawhide (which has kernel 6.9). Adding a kernel dependency > makes it difficult to use with privileged containers and such. That's not exactly true. The 6.9.0 kernel will release on Monday, and that means we are 3-4 weeks away from Fedora 39 and 40 getting a 6.9.x kernel. We need this package on those branches. Test week will begin in just over 2 weeks, with testing users on F39 and F40 running 6.9.x kernels. I don't think the kernel dependency is necessary, we can just wait to do the F39 and F40 builds for 2 weeks, and put them in updates-testing in time for test week.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/vdo