Hide Forgot
Ceph is a distributed network file system designed to provide excellent performance, reliability, and scalability. SRPM: http://people.redhat.com/jwhiter/ceph-0.18-1.fc12.src.rpm Spec: http://people.redhat.com/jwhiter/ceph.spec I've mockbuilt it and run rpmlint against everything it creates, I get the following now [root@localhost SPECS]# rpmlint /root/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/ceph*.rpm ceph.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C CEPH ceph.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scalability -> availability, sociability, inviolability ceph.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/librados.so.1.0.0 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 ceph.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/librados.so.1.0.0 _exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 ceph.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libceph.so.1.0.0 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 ceph.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libceph.so.1.0.0 _exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. the exit() in shared libs can be ignored, they are special C++ classes that are supposed to exit() when an action happens. The other two warnings are dumb.
Scripts parse package reviews, so please either use the template for submitting them or try to stick to the usual format.
Do you mind putting out an update for 0.19? I'd feel better about reviewing this if it has a path for upgrading the filesystem without having to reformat.
Josef, are you still interested in packaging this?
Yeah sorry, got 1000 things going on atm. I will update this today for you, thanks.
Argh I'm having a problem building this atm, rpmbuild keeps driving the box into swap. As soon as I figure out whats going on I'll post the new spec and srpm up here.
Well that was a freaking ordeal. I've updated ceph, its now at SRPM: http://people.redhat.com/jwhiter/ceph-0.19.1-1.fc12.src.rpm Spec: http://people.redhat.com/jwhiter/ceph.spec
I'm sorry about the pain. I've got a crazy week ahead here, but I'll try to get on this over the weekend.
Just to give some input: I successfully built ceph using koji, but I was not able to build it on my local machine: make[2]: *** [rgw_main.o] Error 1 rpmlint just notes some small things: name-repeated-in-summary spelling-error shared-lib-calls-exit no-manual-page-for-binary I did not yet run the daemon.
Key: X - Good - - Not so good N/A - Not applicable [ - ] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package Aside from non-existent spelling mistakes, the only thing that comes up is: ceph.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/librados.so.1.0.0 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 ceph.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/librados.so.1.0.0 _exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 ceph.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libceph.so.1.0.0 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 ceph.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libceph.so.1.0.0 _exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 If we could try to track this down, it would be nice, as this really isn't recommended. [ X ] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines [ X ] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name} [ X ] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines [ X ] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines LGPLv2 [ X ] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license [ - ] MUST: 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 must be included in %doc I see that you included COPYING only in the -devel package. I think it should be included in *every* package, based on the above text (though it is a bit ambiguous). [ X ] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [ X ] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [ X ] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. sha256sum: 20e311c97e761017cdbbad13ab06bc6694338871832579bd51203173535ed796 [ - ] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture When I try to build this package in Fedora 13 x86_64, I get the following: RPM build errors: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found: /usr/lib64/libhadoopcephfs.so /usr/lib64/libhadoopcephfs.so.1 /usr/lib64/libhadoopcephfs.so.1.0.0 [N/A] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. [ X ] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires. [N/A] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. [ X ] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [N/A] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review. [ - ] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. You create %{_libdir}/ceph, but don't own it. [ X ] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. [ X ] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. [ X ] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [ X ] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [ X ] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [N/A] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. [ X ] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. [ X ] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [N/A] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [N/A] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. [ X ] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. [ X ] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} [ X ] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. [N/A] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file. [ X ] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [ X ] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [ X ] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [ ? ] SHOULD query upstream to include it. [N/A] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [ - ] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. I've been unable to test that it builds in mock, but according to the previous comment, it appears that it doesn't. [ ? ] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ? ] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. I've tested the most of the binaries don't segfault, but not much more. [ X ] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. [ X ] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [N/A] SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. [N/A] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. [ X ] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. Apart from this, the description for the fuse client is a bit too brief
A spec file which includes COPYING in every package, includes libhadoopcephfs.so*, owns %{_libdir}/ceph and fixes the description for the fuse client is available at: http://www.lesbg.com/jdieter/ceph.spec
Re(In reply to comment #9) > [ - ] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. > > I've been unable to test that it builds in mock, but according to the > previous comment, it appears that it doesn't. I just did a plain rpmrebuild outside of mock.
Hrm I built this thing on a F12 box and libhadoop wasn't built. I know its supposed to be there, it's weird that it didn't show up. The exit() in the shared libraries are expected, they are specifically "kill this client" functions for when things in the cluster go wrong, so they aren't going anywhere. I interpreted the COPYING thing for just the -devel package, but it makes sense to have it in all packages too. It seems your spec cleans up all of the issues you found (thank you!) I will rebuild in koji to make sure the thing will actually build somewhere other than my box. I built it in MOCK and it worked for me, but my box is an odd one in general so hopefully koji will be a little bit more consistent.
As I was playing around with this today, I noticed that the man pages for cauthtool and rados are in the ceph-fuse package, while the binaries are in the base package. We probably want to move them to the base package as I'm assuming cauthtool and rados aren't just needed for the fuse client. As for the exit() in shared libraries, your explanation makes sense, so we'll call that good. FWIW, I did build the package on my system with the updated spec and haven't hit any glitches yet (though I haven't set up a ceph cluster yet). I'm going to call this approved, with the proviso that the man pages get moved (or binaries the other way if they are specific to the fuse client).
Argh yeah that man page thing was a screw up, i just saw i needed to add man pages and put them under the first %{_mandir} tag I saw. Here are the updated spec and srpm SRPM: http://people.redhat.com/jwhiter/ceph-0.19.1-3.fc12.src.rpm Spec: http://people.redhat.com/jwhiter/ceph.spec Thanks for the review!
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: ceph Short Description: User space components of the CEPH file system Owners: josef boodle Branches: F-12 F-13 InitialCC:
No problem. Have you thought about asking the kernel devs to backport the ceph kernel module into 2.6.33? Seeing as it made it into 2.6.34, it should fit Fedora's requirements for adding modules to the kernel. Anyhow, just a thought.
Alrighty figured out the libhadoop weirdness. Apparently if you have java installed it will build, but if you don't it won't. Since I don't have java installed I wasn't getting libhadoop and you were. As soon as I figure out which package is needed for it to work I'll add that as a BR. As for backporting CEPH, I aggravate the kernel people enough by backporting btrfs stuff, so I'm going to leave things as they are, and then when we ship a 2.6.34 kernel it will all work fine, and in the meantime people can use sage's git tree to get the kernel client. Plus, you can always use the fuse client.
Josef, I was setting up a ceph server here and had to figure this out. shockingly, java requires some hacks in the spec file to package it properly. You need this patch: --- ceph.spec 2010-04-26 09:56:54.000000000 -0400 +++ ceph.spec.new 2010-04-27 21:03:37.116861651 -0400 @@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ Patch0: ceph-init-fix.patch BuildRequires: fuse-devel, libtool, libtool-ltdl-devel, boost-devel, BuildRequires: libedit-devel, fuse-devel, git, perl, perl-devel, gdbm, -BuildRequires: openssl-devel +BuildRequires: openssl-devel, java-devel BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) Requires(post): chkconfig Requires(preun): chkconfig @@ -43,7 +43,10 @@ %build ./autogen.sh -%configure +for i in -I/usr/lib/jvm/java/include{,/linux}; do + java_inc="$java_inc $i" +done +%configure CPPFLAGS="$java_inc" make CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" %install I derived it from here: http://osdir.com/ml/fedora-packaging/2009-05/msg00061.html
Ahh perfect thanks Neil, thats a bit cleaner than what I had come up with.
CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py).
@Josef , is the spec landing in CVS at some point? :)
Yeah, I've had to fiddle with things to get it working nice for 0.20. I plan to add it to CVS tomorrow (since my fedora box is at home and i'm at work atm).
Ah okay, nice. Thanks.
I'd like to see this in EPEL6. I can maintain it there if the current maintainers don't want to. It builds and install fine. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3923067
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: ceph New Branches: el6 Owners: josef
Git done (by process-git-requests).