Spec URL: http://octopuslb.sourceforge.net/octopus.spec SRPM URL: http://octopuslb.sourceforge.net/octopus-1.10-1.fc13.src.rpm Description: Hi there, this is my first Fedora package and I'm seeking a sponsor. Octopus is an extremely fast TCP load balancer with extensions for HTTP to allow balancing based on URI. Features include: server health checks and load polling, dynamic configuration, and the ability to carbon copy incoming requests.
rpmlint has run without any errors or warnings [makerpm@legionx rpmbuild]$ rpmlint ./SPECS/octopus.spec ./RPMS/x86_64/octopus-1.10-1.fc13.x86_64.rpm ./SRPMS/octopus-1.10-1.fc13.src.rpm 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Common_Character_Set_for_Package_Naming "When naming a package, the name should match the upstream tarball or project name from which this software came." Here, "octopus" is clearly the wrong name. IMHO the name of the package should be "octopus-load-balancer" or "octopuslb". In addition to this load balancer, there is a GPL-licensed quantum chemistry program called Octopus http://www.tddft.org/programs/octopus/ and also there seems to be something called Octopus on sourceforge as well http://sourceforge.net/projects/octopus/ but it doesn't seem very active.
Hi Jussi, thanks for the feedback I will update the RPM name to be "octopuslb" and then post new SRPM and SPEC file links Cheers Al
* Please enter your real name in your bugzilla.redhat.com account preferences. Currently, you are listed as "(none)" on the NEEDSPONSOR list, which isn't helpful. > BuildRequires: net-snmp-devel >= 5.0, net-snmp-libs => 5.0, autoconf Why autoconf? The spec file doesn't do anything with autoconf. > Requires: net-snmp-libs >= 5.0 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Explicit_Requires > %doc README CHANGELOG COPYRIGHT INSTALL TODO AUTHORS COPYING In case the file 'INSTALL' is the same as (or very similar to) /usr/share/autoconf/INSTALL, it is not relevant to RPM package users and only adds confusion.
Hi guys, thanks for the advice. I've actually made a new build of the software with all filesystem objects renamed to 'octopuslb' instead of just 'octopus'. I don't want to deal with the binaries being called one thing when using RPM files and other when using the source tar.gz. I've added my real name to bugzilla, removed the explicit requires, autoconf from buildrequires, and the INSTALL file is no longer bundled with the RPM Here are the current SPEC and SRPM files. Neither has any rpmlint errors or warnings. http://octopuslb.sourceforge.net/octopuslb.spec http://octopuslb.sourceforge.net/octopuslb-1.11-1.fc13.src.rpm
Hi Al, Some quick note: *Perhaps is not : Source: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz *net-snmp-libs => 5.0 is required to build? *And Is BuildRoot and %clean section really needed? HTH
Hi Sergio, Thanks for that sourceforge link with downloads subdomain at the front. Much cleaner. I've made this changes in the spec file linked above. About the "net-snmp-libs => 5.0" the libraries are needed. When installing "net-snmp-devel" this is a dependency. Does that mean I shouldn't bother listing the "libs" component as it'll be installed implicitly by yum? You're right about the %clean section; I know that it's no longer neccessary for Fedora but keeping it in there means I can build for RHEL/EPEL using the same RPM. Does it cause any problems for Fedora? Cheers Al
(In reply to comment #7) > Hi Sergio, Hi > > Thanks for that sourceforge link with downloads subdomain at the front. Much > cleaner. I've made this changes in the spec file linked above. > > About the "net-snmp-libs => 5.0" the libraries are needed. When installing > "net-snmp-devel" this is a dependency. Does that mean I shouldn't bother > listing the "libs" component as it'll be installed implicitly by yum? Try to build it with mock or koji removing net-snmp-libs from BuildRequires. It looks like it's not needed. Take a look at: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=2889406&name=root.log > > You're right about the %clean section; I know that it's no longer neccessary > for Fedora but keeping it in there means I can build for RHEL/EPEL using the > same RPM. Does it cause any problems for Fedora? AFAIK it doesn't As you changed the spec, you should make the proper changes to EVR and changelog. > > Cheers > Al
Thanks for that; I did a koji build for f13-updates and f15 with "net-snmp-libs" omitted and it was automatically added as a dependency in both cases. I've updated the EVR and changelog in the SPEC file too. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2889553 I appreciate your help Sergio. Here are the new links http://octopuslb.sourceforge.net/octopuslb.spec http://octopuslb.sourceforge.net/octopuslb-1.11-2.fc13.src.rpm Al
To make some progress here, did you do some informal reviews or did you introduce yourself? Please refer for the details https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group
just a small note: you should download sources using wget, to prevent warnings like the following rpmlint /home/mrunge/rpmbuild/SRPMS/octopuslb-1.11-2.fc15.src.rpm .. octopuslb.src: W: file-size-mismatch octopuslb-1.11.tar.gz = 135518, http://downloads.sourceforge.net/octopuslb/octopuslb-1.11.tar.gz = 135464
Thanks Matthias, I'll upgrade the RPM to the latest upstream, make a systemd script, go through and re-reintroduce myself to the mailing list and take it from there.
New Spec file and SRPM for version 1.13 including systemd service script. rpmlint is happy about it all (apart from the spell checker not acknowledging the word 'balancer') http://octopuslb.sourceforge.net/octopuslb.spec http://octopuslb.sourceforge.net/octopuslb.1.13-1.fc15.src.rpm
Apologies for the bad SRPM link http://octopuslb.sourceforge.net/octopuslb.spec http://octopuslb.sourceforge.net/octopuslb-1.13-1.fc15.src.rpm
I'll work on a review for this tomorrow - In the meantime feel free to pick up a few more unofficial reviews, and link to them in this review. Thanks for taking initiative on this.
Sorry that it has taken me this long to circle back around. The package looks good. Review follows. If you don't mind, can you list the package reviews you have done in this ticket as well? OK MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package False positive [ke4qqq@nalleyx200 SPECS]$ rpmlint ./octopuslb.spec ../SRPMS/octopuslb-1.13-1.fc15.src.rpm ../RPMS/x86_64/octopuslb-* octopuslb.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US balancer -> balance, balances, balanced octopuslb.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US balancer -> balance, balances, balanced 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. OK MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines OK MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name} [...] [ ] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines OK MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines OK MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license OK 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 OK MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. OK MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. OK MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. [ke4qqq@nalleyx200 SOURCES]$ md5sum octopuslb-1.13.tar.gz* 96006009e6a0f91496af3807e604f404 octopuslb-1.13.tar.gz 96006009e6a0f91496af3807e604f404 octopuslb-1.13.tar.gz.1 OK MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture NA 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. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line OK MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. NA MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden NA 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. NA MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. OK 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. OK MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. OK 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. OK MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). OK MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. OK MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. NA MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). OK MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. NA MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. NA MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. OK MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). NA 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. NA MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} OK MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. NA MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. OK MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. OK MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). OK MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
Hi David, Thanks for the comprehensive review there. The packages I have informally review are as below https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739323 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736717 I'm going to get the F16 RC3 candidate tomorrow and get testing on that too. Cheers Al
Any progress here? Al, did you do some other reviews?
Another ping. Al, are you still interested?