Spec URL: http://omajid.fedorapeople.org/thermostat/thermostat.spec SRPM URL: http://omajid.fedorapeople.org/thermostat/thermostat-0.1-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: Thermostat is an instrumentation tool for the Hotspot JVM, with support for monitoring multiple JVM instances on multiple hosts, optionally in a cloud environment. Goals: - We want a tool that allows users of IcedTea/OpenJDK to monitor running JVMs, especially remote JVMs. - Both high level (uptime, cpu and memory usage) and low level (including hotspot's perf data) information should be available through the tool. - The tool should be usable in a production environment, with minimal overhead. The name Thermostat is intended as a play on words - Thermostat is to Hotspot much as IcedTea is to Java. There are a number of ways of accessing information about the running Hotspot JVM. These include jstatd, JMX, JVMTI, and Systemtap. There is also information available from the host system that would be relevant to developers and administrators. Thermostat should provide a pluggable framework for using one or more of these information sources to monitor local or remote JVMs, in order to best allow us as well as other members of the Open
Updated spec file and srpm: Spec URL: http://omajid.fedorapeople.org/thermostat/thermostat.spec SRPM URL: http://omajid.fedorapeople.org/thermostat/thermostat-0.1-1.fc15.src.rpm Changed description to: Thermostat is a monitoring and instrumentation tool for the Hotspot JVM, with support for monitoring multiple JVM instances. The system is made up of two processes: an Agent, which collects data, and a Client which allows users to visualize this data. These components communicate via a MongoDB-based storage layer. A pluggable agent framework allows for collection of performance data beyond that which is included out of the box. Support for corresponding pluggable GUI components for visualization of additional data is pending.
Hi, Below is a rather thorough check, started by using the fedora-review tool, with some manual intervention for the things it does not check (or checks too strictly, explained on a case by case basis below on lines starting with '###'). Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated ==== Generic ==== [x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine [x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. ### Nit (spelling): s/Intial/Initial in the changelog. [x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required [x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: MUST %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5 [-]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required [x]: 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 is included in %doc. [x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: MUST Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: MUST No %config files under /usr. [x]: MUST Package does not generates any conflict. [x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: MUST Package installs properly. [x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent. ### This was marked as fail by fedora-review tool, but I don't think anything here is actually a blocker. rpmlint thermostat-0.1-1.fc18.src.rpm thermostat.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pluggable -> plug gable, plug-gable, plugged 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. ### Maybe go with the 'plug-gable' suggested spelling? rpmlint thermostat-0.1-1.fc18.noarch.rpm thermostat.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pluggable -> plug gable, plug-gable, plugged ### Ditto on the spelling thermostat.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary thermostat-client ### It would be nice to pester upstream for a manpage, but this is not a blocker. 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. rpmlint thermostat-javadoc-0.1-1.fc18.noarch.rpm thermostat-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs -> Java docs, Java-docs, Avocados ### Is the hyphenated suggestion the preferred spelling? 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. /home/rpmbuilder/788235/6f83cf36541d.tar.gz : MD5SUM this package : e8b84e6c604ea5fefbd26fc080c31ab5 MD5SUM upstream package : e8b84e6c604ea5fefbd26fc080c31ab5 [x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present. [x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [x]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [!]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Source0: http://icedtea.classpath.org/hg/thermostat/archive/6f83cf36541d.tar.gz (6f83cf36541d.tar.gz) Patch0: fix-install-dir.patch (fix-install- dir.patch) ### While upstream determines their tarball name, please rename patch. [x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL. [-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. ### upstream has little in the way of automated testing [x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define. ==== Java ==== [-]: MUST If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be removed prior to building [x]: MUST Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils [x]: MUST Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: MUST Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage [x]: MUST Javadoc subpackages have Requires: jpackage-utils [x]: MUST Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink) [x]: SHOULD Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible) [x]: SHOULD Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.) ==== Maven ==== [x]: MUST Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used [-]: MUST If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when building with ant Issues: [!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent. ### Same spelling issues as above. rpmlint thermostat-0.1-1.fc18.src.rpm thermostat.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pluggable -> plug gable, plug-gable, plugged 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. rpmlint thermostat-0.1-1.fc18.noarch.rpm thermostat.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pluggable -> plug gable, plug-gable, plugged thermostat.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary thermostat-client 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. rpmlint thermostat-javadoc-0.1-1.fc18.noarch.rpm thermostat-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs -> Java docs, Java-docs, Avocados 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. #################################### Since the rpmlint fails are minor, mostly spelling, and considering the other comments above, I think this package is fine (but I encourage the packager to tweak the spelling and patch name as noted once this is in version control).
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: thermostat Short Description: A monitoring and serviceability tool for OpenJDK Owners: omajid Branches: f17 InitialCC: omajid
Git done (by process-git-requests).