Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/bookkeeper.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/bookkeeper-4.2.1-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: The Apache BookKeeper sub-project of ZooKeeper is made up of a distributed logging service called BookKeeper and a distributed publish/subscribe system built on top of BookKeeper called Hedwig. Fedora Account System Username: gil
I'll take this with bz 823122 zookeeper in a row.
Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/bookkeeper.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/bookkeeper-4.2.1-1.fc18.src.rpm -removed jpackage-utils reference from javadoc subpackage
Created attachment 759693 [details] FTBFS - BuildLog FTBFS on RAWHIDE Please fix, see attachment
sorry, for the wait, can you retry now? Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/bookkeeper.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/bookkeeper-4.2.1-1.fc18.src.rpm
Created attachment 759719 [details] FTBFS - 2 - BuildLog Still FTBFS, but new reason, see attachment.
hi. thanks for your time spent for review my packages. is a boost library problem, now try to rebuild bookkeeper in rawhide before post a new package... with a little build fix for the c libraries sorry for the wait regards
Hey Gil! You're welcome. Didn't we all became packagers, bcause we want to improve Fedora? So am I. Robert Rati asked on devel-ml for someone reviewing bugs blocking hadoop and just said "Let's-a-go" :) If just have some more pkgs urgently waiting for review, just ask me. I don't promise anything, but will do my best to help out asap. Since we're both in same TZ (CEST/CET) i assume, let's take this for tommorow. Today I took and approved six out of seven reviews blocking hadoop and now I'm tired a bit... Cheers, Björn
Created attachment 760120 [details] fix build with boost >= 1.53.0 This should fix build. Changed things are backport-compatible with previous boost-versions >= 1.40.0 Please update and I'll take a new review run.
Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/bookkeeper.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/bookkeeper-4.2.1-1.fc18.src.rpm - applied boost patch
Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5496273 reporte only these warnings: channel.cpp: In member function 'virtual void Hedwig::AsioDuplexChannel::doConnect(const OperationCallbackPtr&)': channel.cpp:536:29: warning: variable 'error' set but not used [-Wunused-but-set-variable] boost::system::error_code error = boost::asio::error::host_not_found; ^ channel.cpp: In member function 'virtual void Hedwig::AsioSSLDuplexChannel::doConnect(const OperationCallbackPtr&)': channel.cpp:663:29: warning: variable 'error' set but not used [-Wunused-but-set-variable] boost::system::error_code error = boost::asio::error::host_not_found;
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #10) > Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5496273 > > reporte only these warnings: > channel.cpp: In member function 'virtual void > Hedwig::AsioDuplexChannel::doConnect(const OperationCallbackPtr&)': > channel.cpp:536:29: warning: variable 'error' set but not used > [-Wunused-but-set-variable] > boost::system::error_code error = boost::asio::error::host_not_found; > ^ > channel.cpp: In member function 'virtual void > Hedwig::AsioSSLDuplexChannel::doConnect(const OperationCallbackPtr&)': > channel.cpp:663:29: warning: variable 'error' set but not used > [-Wunused-but-set-variable] > boost::system::error_code error = boost::asio::error::host_not_found; You can safely ignore these.
Package has some minor issues, no real blockers, so fixing in SCM will be OK. ##### Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Maven packages should use new style packaging Note: If possible update your package to latest guidelines See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Apache_Maven ---> comment about this in spec and update after F18 EOL - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: These BR are not needed: make See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 ---> remove from BR, please - Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. Note: Missing: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} in libhedwig, libhedwig-devel, bookkeeper-java See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#RequiringBasePackage ---> false positve: main-pkg is app for running on server. rest is either docs or libs providing API for client-software. - libhedwig.x86_64: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libhedwig01.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libboost_system-mt.so.1.53.0 ---> get rid of unused-shlib-dep, see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#unused-direct-shlib-dependency AFTER invoking autoreconf invoke: `sed -i -e 's! -shared ! -Wl,--as-needed\0!g' libtool` ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libhedwig , libhedwig-devel , bookkeeper-java , bookkeeper-javadoc ---> see above [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bjoern.esser/fedora/review/948589-bookkeeper/licensecheck.txt ---> License-tag is fine. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 102400 bytes in 8 files. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: 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]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Java: [x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is pulled in by maven-local [x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage [x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils [x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink) [x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build Maven: [x]: Pom files have correct Maven mapping Note: Some add_maven_depmap calls found. Please check if they are correct or update to latest guidelines [x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when building with ant [x]: If tests are skipped during package build explain why it was needed in a comment Note: Tests seem to be skipped. Verify there is a commment giving a reason for this ---> reason commented in spec: missing deps [x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used [x]: Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage- utils for %update_maven_depmap macro [x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun [x]: Packages use %{_mavenpomdir} instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: 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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments ---> SourceX are legit. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. ---> no `make check`-target present in Makefile(s). [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. Java: [x]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI Note: libhedwig subpackage is not noarch. Please verify manually [x]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.) ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: libhedwig-4.2.1-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm libhedwig-devel-4.2.1-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm bookkeeper-java-4.2.1-1.fc20.noarch.rpm bookkeeper-javadoc-4.2.1-1.fc20.noarch.rpm libhedwig.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Hedwig -> Dwight 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint bookkeeper-javadoc libhedwig-devel libhedwig bookkeeper-java libhedwig.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Hedwig -> Dwight libhedwig.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libhedwig01.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libboost_system-mt.so.1.53.0 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' ---> get rid of unused-shlib-dep, see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#unused-direct-shlib-dependency Requires -------- bookkeeper-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils libhedwig-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libhedwig(x86-64) libhedwig01.so.0()(64bit) libhedwig (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libboost_system-mt.so.1.53.0()(64bit) libboost_system.so.1.53.0()(64bit) libboost_thread-mt.so.1.53.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.10()(64bit) libcrypto.so.10(libcrypto.so.10)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) liblog4cxx.so.10()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libprotobuf.so.8()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libssl.so.10()(64bit) libssl.so.10(libssl.so.10)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) bookkeeper-java (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): apache-commons-cli apache-commons-codec apache-commons-collections apache-commons-configuration apache-commons-io derby guava java jline jpackage-utils log4j netty protobuf-java slf4j zookeeper-java Provides -------- bookkeeper-javadoc: bookkeeper-javadoc libhedwig-devel: libhedwig-devel libhedwig-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(hedwig-0.1) libhedwig: libhedwig libhedwig(x86-64) libhedwig01.so.0()(64bit) bookkeeper-java: bookkeeper-java mvn(org.apache.bookkeeper:bookkeeper) mvn(org.apache.bookkeeper:bookkeeper-server) mvn(org.apache.bookkeeper:hedwig-client) mvn(org.apache.bookkeeper:hedwig-protocol) mvn(org.apache.bookkeeper:hedwig-server) Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 948589 ###### With this one the last blocker for hadoop is done. :) hadoop be welcome for F20 !!!! APPROVED!
Just forgot to set fedora-review(+)...
Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/bookkeeper.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/bookkeeper-4.2.1-1.fc18.src.rpm - removed make form BR - removed unused-shlib-dep, thanks to Björn Esser New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: bookkeeper Short Description: Apache BookKeeper sub-project of ZooKeeper Owners: gil Branches: f18 f19 InitialCC: java-sig
Git done (by process-git-requests).
hsqldb1-1.8.1.3-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/hsqldb1-1.8.1.3-1.fc19
(In reply to Fedora Update System from comment #16) > hsqldb1-1.8.1.3-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/hsqldb1-1.8.1.3-1.fc19 This is Bug 948589 - Review Request: bookkeeper - Apache BookKeeper sub-project of ZooKeeper! You possibly mixed up bug#?
sorry! yes, fixed
bookkeeper-4.2.1-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bookkeeper-4.2.1-1.fc19
bookkeeper-4.2.1-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository.
> %files -n libhedwig-devel > %dir %{_includedir}/hedwig-*/hedwig > %{_includedir}/hedwig-*/hedwig/*.h Directory %{_includedir}/hedwig-* is not included. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories You might want to give this %files section a second though and either make it more explicit (= less wildcards + spell out specific header names to expect a specific API) or simply include the full tree starting at the top directory with a single entry: %files -n libhedwig-devel %{_includedir}/hedwig-*/ Then all directories are included properly.
bookkeeper-4.2.1-2.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bookkeeper-4.2.1-2.fc19
bookkeeper-4.2.1-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
bookkeeper-4.2.1-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.