Bug 745219 - Review Request: rvm - C library for unstructured recoverable virtual memory
Summary: Review Request: rvm - C library for unstructured recoverable virtual memory
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On: 745216
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2011-10-11 17:23 UTC by Tom "spot" Callaway
Modified: 2011-10-25 03:25 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version: rpc2-2.10-4.fc16
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2011-10-25 03:25:26 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
kchamart: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Tom "spot" Callaway 2011-10-11 17:23:19 UTC
Spec URL: http://spot.fedorapeople.org/rvm.spec
SRPM URL: http://spot.fedorapeople.org/rvm-1.17-4.fc15.src.rpm

Description: 
The RVM persistent recoverable memory library. The RVM library is used by
the Coda distributed filesystem.

NOTE: This package was previously in Fedora and was retired due to FTBFS, but it builds fine these days. It depends on lwp to build, hence, no koji rawhide scratch build.

Comment 1 Kashyap Chamarthy 2011-10-11 19:03:45 UTC
rpmlint was very clean.
===========
build@~/rpmbuild/SOURCES -> rpmlint ../SPECS/rvm.spec 
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
build@~/rpmbuild/SOURCES -> 
===========

here is my review:
############################################
OK - %{?dist} tag is used in release
OK - The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
OK - The spec file name must match the base package %{name}
OK - The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines

OK - The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and
meet the Licensing Guidelines (license is LGPLv2)

NA - Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun
OK - The package MUST successfully compile and build
koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3423707
OK - The spec file must be written in American English.
OK - The spec file for the package MUST be legible
OK - The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
========================
build@~/rpmbuild/SOURCES -> gpg rvm-1.17.tar.gz.asc
gpg: Signature made Wed 24 Mar 2010 12:08:17 AM IST using DSA key ID 997007A2
gpg: Good signature from "Jan Harkes <jaharkes.edu>"
gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
gpg:          There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner.
Primary key fingerprint: 477F 78AA 863A 90A6 2366  4AA1 CE0D 7E10 9970 07A2
========================


OK - A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings
OK - Permissions on files must be set properly
OK - Each package must have a %clean section
OK - Each package must consistently use macros
OK - The package must contain code, or permissible content 
OK - Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage -- No large
documentation
OK - If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application
OK - Header files must be in a -devel package -- no devel package
NA - Static libraries must be in a -static package -- no static package
NA - Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
OK - Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives

OK - No file conflicts with other packages and no general names.

OK - All file names in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8
OK - The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a
duplicate.
############################################

I didn't install and try the (successful)scratch build of rvm(and it's sub pkgs) http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3423708 as there are some missing deps (lwp and lwp devel) -- the other two pkgs you needed. I see they're submitted for 'Package Change Request'

Looks good. [I hope I didn't miss anything, I don't perform reviews as often].

This package is Approved.

Comment 2 Kashyap Chamarthy 2011-10-11 20:02:19 UTC
Flipped the review flag to +

Comment 3 Tom "spot" Callaway 2011-10-12 20:31:59 UTC
Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: rvm
New Branches: f16
Owners: spot
InitialCC: 

This package is being revived.

Comment 4 Gwyn Ciesla 2011-10-13 12:43:00 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Also unretired devel, please take ownership in pkgdb.

Comment 5 Fedora Update System 2011-10-13 14:21:02 UTC
rpc2-2.10-4.fc16,lwp-2.6-4.fc16,rvm-1.17-5.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rpc2-2.10-4.fc16,lwp-2.6-4.fc16,rvm-1.17-5.fc16

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2011-10-13 18:11:33 UTC
Package rpc2-2.10-4.fc16, lwp-2.6-4.fc16, rvm-1.17-5.fc16:
* should fix your issue,
* was pushed to the Fedora 16 testing repository,
* should be available at your local mirror within two days.
Update it with:
# su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing rpc2-2.10-4.fc16 lwp-2.6-4.fc16 rvm-1.17-5.fc16'
as soon as you are able to.
Please go to the following url:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2011-14251
then log in and leave karma (feedback).

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2011-10-25 03:25:26 UTC
rpc2-2.10-4.fc16, lwp-2.6-4.fc16, rvm-1.17-5.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.


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