Bug 2445182 - Review Request: MooseFS - Distributed, scalable, fault tolerant file system
Summary: Review Request: MooseFS - Distributed, scalable, fault tolerant file system
Keywords:
Status: ASSIGNED
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
unspecified
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Benson Muite
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL: http://www.moosefs.com/
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: FE-NEEDSPONSOR
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2026-03-06 14:00 UTC by Agata Kruszona-Zawadzka
Modified: 2026-04-09 08:03 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed:
Type: ---
Embargoed:
benson_muite: fedora-review?


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Agata Kruszona-Zawadzka 2026-03-06 14:00:26 UTC
Edit:

New, corrected version of spec file for newer MooseFS release (4.58.4):

Updated info, for version 4.58.4:

Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/moosefs/moosefs/11b915af2f7f1e128fbca1524688c329ffd7a373/rpm/fedora/moosefs.spec
SRPM URL: https://repository.moosefs.com/src/fedora/moosefs-4.58.4-1.fc42.src.rpm
Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=143652279

************************************************************

Spec URL: https://github.com/moosefs/moosefs/blob/875162b500b512179a77e88b073ffc1ec3f3d7d9/rpm/fedora/moosefs.spec
SRPM URL: https://repository.moosefs.com/src/fedora/moosefs-4.58.3-1.fc42.src.rpm

Description: MooseFS is an Open Source, easy to deploy and maintain, distributed,
fault tolerant file system for POSIX compliant OSes.
Fedora Account System Username: moosefs-dev

This is my first submission and I'm looking for a sponsor. I am part of the upstream development team.

This is the Koji build for this package: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=143078224

Comment 1 Benson Muite 2026-03-06 16:19:09 UTC
Spec url should be to the raw spec file, not a rendered directory listing.

Comment 2 Agata Kruszona-Zawadzka 2026-03-06 16:45:37 UTC
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #1)
> Spec url should be to the raw spec file, not a rendered directory listing.

Thank you, I updated my initial post.

Comment 3 Artur Frenszek-Iwicki 2026-03-06 17:56:12 UTC
> Thank you, I updated my initial post.
That's still a bad link, as it goes to a syntax-highlighted HTML rendition of the spec. Please use "raw file" links.

> # Turn off debug packages
> %global _enable_debug_package 0
> %global debug_package %{nil}
Debuginfo packages are required, unless the information contained in them isn't very useful.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_debuginfo_packages

> Group:		System Environment/Daemons
> BuildRoot:	%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
No longer used in Fedora.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_tags_and_sections

> make %{?_smp_mflags}
You may want to use %make_build instead, which handles smp flags for you and enables verbose mode.

> %install
> rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
Don't.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_tags_and_sections

> make install \
>	DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
You may want to use %make_install instead, which handles DESTDIR for you.

> %files master
> [...]
> %attr(755,root,root) %{_sbindir}/mfsmaster
You should probably use %{_bindir} here, since /sbin is now merged into /bin since Fedora 42.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Unify_bin_and_sbin
Also, setting the file mode is most likely not needed. Executables get 0755 by default.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_file_permissions

> # %%attr(755,root,root) %%{_sbindir}/mfsbdev - moved to EXTRA_FILES
> /sbin/mount.moosefs
This one file uses a literal path instead of the %{_bindir} macro.

Comment 4 Agata Kruszona-Zawadzka 2026-03-09 13:42:04 UTC
(In reply to Artur Frenszek-Iwicki from comment #3)
> > Thank you, I updated my initial post.
> That's still a bad link, as it goes to a syntax-highlighted HTML rendition
> of the spec. Please use "raw file" links.
> 

OK, sorry, my mistake :)

> > # Turn off debug packages
> > %global _enable_debug_package 0
> > %global debug_package %{nil}
> Debuginfo packages are required, unless the information contained in them
> isn't very useful.
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
> #_debuginfo_packages

OK, I've removed the relevant lines.

> > Group:		System Environment/Daemons
> > BuildRoot:	%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
> No longer used in Fedora.
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_tags_and_sections

Gone.

> > make %{?_smp_mflags}
> You may want to use %make_build instead, which handles smp flags for you and
> enables verbose mode.

OK

> > %install
> > rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
> Don't.
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_tags_and_sections

OK

> > make install \
> >	DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
> You may want to use %make_install instead, which handles DESTDIR for you.

OK

> > %files master
> > [...]
> > %attr(755,root,root) %{_sbindir}/mfsmaster
> You should probably use %{_bindir} here, since /sbin is now merged into /bin
> since Fedora 42.
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Unify_bin_and_sbin

OK

> Also, setting the file mode is most likely not needed. Executables get 0755
> by default.
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_file_permissions

It looks like not setting file modes doesn't work, at least according to lint:

moosefs-client.x86_64: W: non-executable-in-bin /usr/bin/mfsarchive 644
moosefs-client.x86_64: W: non-executable-in-bin /usr/bin/mfsbdev 644
moosefs-client.x86_64: W: non-executable-in-bin /usr/bin/mfscopygoal 644
moosefs-client.x86_64: W: non-executable-in-bin /usr/bin/mfsdiagtools 644
moosefs-client.x86_64: W: non-executable-in-bin /usr/bin/mfseattr 644
moosefs-client.x86_64: W: non-executable-in-bin /usr/bin/mfsfacl 644
moosefs-client.x86_64: W: non-executable-in-bin /usr/bin/mfsgetgoal 644
moosefs-client.x86_64: W: non-executable-in-bin /usr/bin/mfsmount 644
moosefs-client.x86_64: W: non-executable-in-bin /usr/bin/mfspatadmin 644
moosefs-client.x86_64: W: non-executable-in-bin /usr/bin/mfsquota 644
[... and so on]

So I'm leaving it there.

> > # %%attr(755,root,root) %%{_sbindir}/mfsbdev - moved to EXTRA_FILES
> > /sbin/mount.moosefs
> This one file uses a literal path instead of the %{_bindir} macro.

The "/sbin" was forced by configure. We handled that on configure level, now it can be overridden by a configure option and I'm using that option in Fedora spec, so I can use %{_bindir} here. But since this is a change in the source and we have a couple more changes in the pipeline, we will probably have to release MooseFS 4.58.4, so I can get the correct sources to build against. Should I close this request and open a new one later or just let it hang for now and upload new versions of everything when I have them ready (hopefully next week)?

Comment 5 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski 2026-03-09 14:25:59 UTC
(In reply to fedora from comment #4)
[...]
> > Also, setting the file mode is most likely not needed. Executables get 0755
> > by default.
> > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_file_permissions
> 
> It looks like not setting file modes doesn't work, at least according to
> lint:
> 
> moosefs-client.x86_64: W: non-executable-in-bin /usr/bin/mfsarchive 644
> moosefs-client.x86_64: W: non-executable-in-bin /usr/bin/mfsbdev 644
> moosefs-client.x86_64: W: non-executable-in-bin /usr/bin/mfscopygoal 644
> moosefs-client.x86_64: W: non-executable-in-bin /usr/bin/mfsdiagtools 644
> moosefs-client.x86_64: W: non-executable-in-bin /usr/bin/mfseattr 644
> moosefs-client.x86_64: W: non-executable-in-bin /usr/bin/mfsfacl 644
> moosefs-client.x86_64: W: non-executable-in-bin /usr/bin/mfsgetgoal 644
> moosefs-client.x86_64: W: non-executable-in-bin /usr/bin/mfsmount 644
> moosefs-client.x86_64: W: non-executable-in-bin /usr/bin/mfspatadmin 644
> moosefs-client.x86_64: W: non-executable-in-bin /usr/bin/mfsquota 644
> [... and so on]
> 
> So I'm leaving it there.

It works if you remove the %defattr stanza as well.

> Should I close this request and open a new one later or just let it
> hang for now and upload new versions of everything when I have them ready
> (hopefully next week)?

Keep this open and hang on for now, there's no rush.

Comment 7 Fedora Review Service 2026-03-24 15:28:11 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10257351
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2445182-moosefs/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10257351-moosefs/builder-live.log.gz

Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.

- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network
  unavailability), please ignore it.
- If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they
  are listed in the "Depends On" field


---
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.

Comment 9 Agata Kruszona-Zawadzka 2026-04-02 15:16:24 UTC
Hmm, I guess it doesn't work if links are identical. One more try:

[fedora-review-service-build]

Comment 10 Fedora Review Service 2026-04-03 02:53:53 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10288798
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2445182-moosefs/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10288798-moosefs/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir.
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_devel_packages
- Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_macros
- License file licence.py is not marked as %license
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text
- Systemd service file(s) in moosefs-master, moosefs-metalogger, moosefs-chunkserver, moosefs-gui
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/#_scriptlets
- Documentation size is 1032472 bytes in 16 files. 
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_documentation

Please know that there can be false-positives.

---
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.

Comment 11 Fedora Review Service 2026-04-03 02:56:12 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10288803
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2445182-moosefs/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10288803-moosefs/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir.
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_devel_packages
- Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_macros
- License file licence.py is not marked as %license
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text
- Systemd service file(s) in moosefs-master, moosefs-metalogger, moosefs-chunkserver, moosefs-gui
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/#_scriptlets
- Documentation size is 1032472 bytes in 16 files. 
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_documentation

Please know that there can be false-positives.

---
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.

Comment 12 Agata Kruszona-Zawadzka 2026-04-08 12:06:58 UTC
Another attempt at Copr build, with some errors (hopefully) fixed.

Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/moosefs/moosefs/c87903f3bca1e6999d5ff75f351498cbc002db62/rpm/fedora/moosefs.spec
SRPM URL: https://repository.moosefs.com/src/fedora/moosefs-4.58.4-1.fc42.src.rpm

Comment 13 Artur Frenszek-Iwicki 2026-04-08 12:17:33 UTC
The "Group" tag is not used in Fedora and should be removed from all packages.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_tags_and_sections

> %package libmfsio-devel
> Requires: %{name}-libmfsio
This should be an archful, fully versioned dependency: "%{name}-libmfsio%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}".
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_requiring_base_package

Comment 15 Fedora Review Service 2026-04-09 07:36:01 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10304076
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2445182-moosefs/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10304076-moosefs/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir.
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_devel_packages
- Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_macros
- License file licence.py is not marked as %license
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text
- Systemd service file(s) in moosefs-master, moosefs-metalogger, moosefs-chunkserver, moosefs-gui
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/#_scriptlets
- Documentation size is 1032472 bytes in 16 files. 
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_documentation

Please know that there can be false-positives.

---
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.

Comment 16 Fedora Review Service 2026-04-09 07:44:58 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10304102
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2445182-moosefs/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10304102-moosefs/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir.
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_devel_packages
- Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_macros
- License file licence.py is not marked as %license
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text
- Systemd service file(s) in moosefs-master, moosefs-metalogger, moosefs-chunkserver, moosefs-gui
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/#_scriptlets
- Documentation size is 1032472 bytes in 16 files. 
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_documentation

Please know that there can be false-positives.

---
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.

Comment 17 Benson Muite 2026-04-09 08:03:00 UTC
Consider using %autochangelog macro

Create a separate noarch package with NEWS, README and the GPL-2.0 license text
and then have all the other packages require it.

Not blocking, but consider using primary, host or coordinator instead of master:
https://www.acm.org/diversity-inclusion/words-matter
https://blog.ongig.com/diversity-and-inclusion/master-slave-computer-term-bias/


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