Spec URL: http://grid.et.redhat.com/files/classads.spec SRPM URL: http://grid.et.redhat.com/files/classads-1.0-rc2.src.rpm Description: Classified Advertisements (classads) are the lingua franca of Condor. They are used for describing jobs, workstations, and other resources. They are exchanged by Condor processes to schedule jobs. They are logged to files for statistical and debugging purposes. They are used to enquire about current state of the system. // A classad is a mapping from attribute names to expressions. In the simplest cases, the expressions are simple constants (integer, floating point, or string). A classad is thus a form of property list. Attribute expressions can also be more complicated. There is a protocol for evaluating an attribute expression of a classad vis a vis another ad. For example, the expression "other.size > 3" in one ad evaluates to true if the other ad has an attribute named size and the value of that attribute is (or evaluates to) an integer greater than three. Two classads match if each ad has an attribute requirements that evaluates to true in the context of the other ad. Classad matching is used by the Condor central manager to determine the compatibility of jobs and workstations where they may be run. NOTES: 1) This is my first package and I need a sponsor 2) The license is currently unacceptable, but negotiations are nearly complete for a compatible license
"Release:" number should reflect ONLY the packaging version (IE- the first time you package= Release: 1, second = Release: 2, etc etc..). It shouldn't have anything whatsoever to do with the upstream source version. This tends to fall under naming so consult http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines Source0 URL should probably be changed to something like ftp://ftp.cs.wisc.edu/condor/classad/c++/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz I don't know that it's required, but it'll certainly save you from forgetting to bump up the version number in Source0: if you ever bump the version of the package. AFAIK, the CHANGELOG included with the source is only used to reflect changes made to the upstream source and should not be used to document changes to the package itself (nor should it be referred to by the packages %changelog section... I believe the two are to be considered mutually exclusive).
I have fixed the Release Tag to be "0.1.rc2" as per the NamingGuidelines I'm going to stick with the explicit Source0 because I would not be able to properly identify the tarball using %name, %version, %release In the future, I'll properly use the %changelog section, though changes will likely also be documented in CHANGELOG New URLs... Spec: http://grid.et.redhat.com/files/classads.spec SRPM: http://grid.et.redhat.com/files/classads-1.0-0.1.rc2.src.rpm
I've done a review of the SRPM provided, here are some comments: - tarfile matches upstream with the following md5 sum: $ md5sum classads-1.0rc2.tar.gz d3e08a8706b0ad405048192d5f049d28 classads-1.0rc2.tar.gz - managed to build rpms for i386: $ sudo rpmbuild -ba classads.spec error: Failed build dependencies: pcre-devel is needed by classads-1.0-0.1.rc2.i386 $ rpm -qa|grep pcre pcre-6.6-1.1 $ sudo rpmbuild -ba classads.spec --nodeps [...] Wrote: /usr/src/redhat/SRPMS/classads-1.0-0.1.rc2.src.rpm Wrote: /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/i386/classads-1.0-0.1.rc2.i386.rpm Wrote: /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/i386/classads-devel-1.0-0.1.rc2.i386.rpm Wrote: /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/i386/classads-static-1.0-0.1.rc2.i386.rpm Wrote: /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/i386/classads-debuginfo-1.0-0.1.rc2.i386.rpm Note: pcre was installed but pcre-devel was not; rpmbuild still completed successfully, so you may want to double check the need for pcre-devel. - rpmlint gives the following output: $ rpmlint /usr/src/redhat/SRPMS/classads-1.0-0.1.rc2.src.rpm W: classads invalid-license Condor Public License W: classads strange-permission classads.spec 0600 $ rpmlint /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/i386/classads-1.0-0.1.rc2.i386.rpm W: classads invalid-license Condor Public License $ rpmlint /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/i386/classads-devel-1.0-0.1.rc2.i386.rpm W: classads-devel invalid-license Condor Public License $ rpmlint /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/i386/classads-static-1.0-0.1.rc2.i386.rpm W: classads-static invalid-license Condor Public License $ rpmlint /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/i386/classads-debuginfo-1.0-0.1.rc2.i386.rpm W: classads-debuginfo invalid-license Condor Public License I understand the license issue is being worked on, the specfile permissions should be corrected. - checked provides of the built binary rpms: $ rpm -qp /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/i386/classads-1.0-0.1.rc2.i386.rpm --provides libclassad.so.0 libclassad_ns.so.0 classads = 1.0-0.1.rc2 $ rpm -qp /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/i386/classads-devel-1.0-0.1.rc2.i386.rpm --provides classads-devel = 1.0-0.1.rc2 $ rpm -qp /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/i386/classads-static-1.0-0.1.rc2.i386.rpm --provides classads-static = 1.0-0.1.rc2 $ rpm -qp /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/i386/classads-debuginfo-1.0-0.1.rc2.i386.rpm --provides libclassad.so.0.0.0.debug libclassad_ns.so.0.0.0.debug classads-debuginfo = 1.0-0.1.rc2 Seems the three remaining issues are dealing with the licensing, fixing the permissions on the specfile, and confirming or removing the pcre-devel dependency; everything else looks good. Nuno
(In reply to comment #3) > Note: pcre was installed but pcre-devel was not; rpmbuild still completed > successfully, so you may want to double check the need for pcre-devel. The code will use POSIX regex (regcomp/regexec) if pcre is not available, and fall back to no regex support if neither is available. If this is a problem I could probably change the way configure.ac works to fail if pcre is not available, and modify the spec to require pcre during configure's run. Though it might be ok to just not specify --nodeps. I've updated the SRPM to fix the classads.spec permissions, please re-download.
Just to clarify, I used --nodeps just to verify the dependency, I'm not suggesting it should be built that way. I would suggest leaving the pcre/pcre-devel dependency in, if that results in a better environment for the program/build. Just built in mock, all looks good: $ mock -r fedora-devel-i386.cfg classads-1.0-0.1.rc2.src.rpm init clean prep This may take a while create cache setup build ending done Results and/or logs in: /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-i386/result $ ls -alF /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-i386/result total 4492 drwxr-sr-x 2 nsantos mock 4096 Sep 7 18:06 ./ drwxr-sr-x 5 nsantos mock 4096 Sep 7 18:00 ../ -rw-r--r-- 1 nsantos mock 200735 Sep 7 18:06 build.log -rw-rw-r-- 1 nsantos mock 458011 Sep 7 18:06 classads-1.0-0.1.rc2.i386.rpm -rw-rw-r-- 1 nsantos mock 894714 Sep 7 18:02 classads-1.0-0.1.rc2.src.rpm -rw-rw-r-- 1 nsantos mock 2317851 Sep 7 18:06 classads-debuginfo-1.0-0.1.rc2.i386.rpm -rw-rw-r-- 1 nsantos mock 100282 Sep 7 18:06 classads-devel-1.0-0.1.rc2.i386.rpm -rw-rw-r-- 1 nsantos mock 557919 Sep 7 18:06 classads-static-1.0-0.1.rc2.i386.rpm -rw-r--r-- 1 nsantos mock 165 Sep 7 18:00 mockconfig.log -rw-r--r-- 1 nsantos mock 19295 Sep 7 18:06 root.log $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-i386/result/*.rpm W: classads invalid-license Condor Public License W: classads invalid-license Condor Public License W: classads-debuginfo invalid-license Condor Public License W: classads-devel invalid-license Condor Public License W: classads-static invalid-license Condor Public License
The license issue has been resolved. Spec URL: http://grid.et.redhat.com/files/classads.spec SRPM URL: http://grid.et.redhat.com/files/classads-1.0-0.1.rc3.src.rpm
Build issues on F9 resolved (gcc 4.3.0 is strict wrt headers) Test failures necessitated ExcludeArch for ppc, ppc64 and x86_64, with BZs filed that are ready to be assigned to a classads component and block relevant FE-ExcludeArch-* tickets Spec URL: http://grid.et.redhat.com/files/classads.spec SRPM URL: http://grid.et.redhat.com/files/classads-1.0-0.2.rc3.src.rpm
Built the latest version: $ mock -r fedora-devel-i386.cfg classads-1.0-0.2.rc3.src.rpm init clean prep This may take a while unpack cache setup build ending done Results and/or logs in: /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-i386/result $ d /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-i386/result total 4124 drwxr-sr-x 2 nsantos mock 4096 Feb 11 11:20 ./ drwxr-sr-x 5 nsantos mock 4096 Feb 11 11:11 ../ -rw-r--r-- 1 nsantos mock 293364 Feb 11 11:20 build.log -rw-r--r-- 1 nsantos mock 447566 Feb 11 11:20 classads-1.0-0.2.rc3.i386.rpm -rw-r--r-- 1 nsantos mock 515001 Feb 11 11:15 classads-1.0-0.2.rc3.src.rpm -rw-r--r-- 1 nsantos mock 2234000 Feb 11 11:20 classads-debuginfo-1.0-0.2.rc3.i386.rpm -rw-r--r-- 1 nsantos mock 105224 Feb 11 11:20 classads-devel-1.0-0.2.rc3.i386.rpm -rw-r--r-- 1 nsantos mock 526831 Feb 11 11:20 classads-static-1.0-0.2.rc3.i386.rpm -rw-r--r-- 1 nsantos mock 165 Feb 11 11:11 mockconfig.log -rw-r--r-- 1 nsantos mock 11824 Feb 11 11:20 root.log $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-i386/result/*.rpm $ Looks good, marking as fedora-review+
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: classads Short Description: a powerful and flexible, semi-structure representation of data Owners: matt Branches: InitialCC: Cvsextras Commits: Yes
cvs done. NEEDSPONSOR removed.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: classads New Branches: EL-4 EL-5 EL-6 Owners: matt stevetraylen I've been in touch with Matt in Bug #599144 and he is happy to co-maintain classads with me in EPEL. Steve.
cvs done.
classads-1.0.8-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/classads-1.0.8-1.el5
classads-1.0.8-1.el4 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 4. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/classads-1.0.8-1.el4
classads-1.0.8-1.el4 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 4 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
classads-1.0.8-1.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.