[Bug 1010512] Review Request: mesos - Cluster Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010512 --- Comment #26 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- No owners specified. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1010512] Review Request: mesos - Cluster Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010512 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1010512] Review Request: mesos - Cluster Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010512 --- Comment #27 from Timothy St. Clair tstcl...@redhat.com --- @Ratnadeep - Yup. Perhaps we should open a new ticket given that mesos is already in f21 and out the door. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1010512] Review Request: mesos - Cluster Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010512 --- Comment #25 from Ratnadeep Debnath rtn...@gmail.com --- Hey Timothy, Could you please elaborate on what do you mean by drag in the missing transitive dependencies? During the build, I saw some extra packages being downloaded and installed by maven. Are you referring to these? I also see some content in ~/.m2/repository. Are these the missing transitive dependencies? Please excuse me for my ignorance with Java and Maven build process. Regards, rtnpro -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1010512] Review Request: mesos - Cluster Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010512 Ratnadeep Debnath rtn...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rtn...@gmail.com Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #23 from Ratnadeep Debnath rtn...@gmail.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: mesos New Branches: epel7 SPEC Url: https://rtnpro.fedorapeople.org/Packages/SPECS/mesos.spec SRPM Url: https://rtnpro.fedorapeople.org/Packages/SRPMS/mesos-0.21.0-5.ab8fa65.el7.centos.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1010512] Review Request: mesos - Cluster Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010512 --- Comment #24 from Timothy St. Clair tstcl...@redhat.com --- Ratnadeep you would need to drag in the missing transitive dependencies into epel in order to make that happen. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1010512] Review Request: mesos - Cluster Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010512 Timothy St. Clair tstcl...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2014-02-26 15:59:28 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1010512] Review Request: mesos - Cluster Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010512 --- Comment #20 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- bigdata-sig is not a valid FAS account. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1010512] Review Request: mesos - Cluster Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010512 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1010512] Review Request: mesos - Cluster Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010512 Timothy St. Clair tstcl...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #21 from Timothy St. Clair tstcl...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: mesos Short Description: Cluster manager for sharing distributed application frameworks Owners: tstclair Branches: f20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1010512] Review Request: mesos - Cluster Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010512 Dennis Gilmore den...@ausil.us changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1010512] Review Request: mesos - Cluster Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010512 --- Comment #22 from Dennis Gilmore den...@ausil.us --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1010512] Review Request: mesos - Cluster Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010512 Timothy St. Clair tstcl...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1010512] Review Request: mesos - Cluster Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010512
Will Benton wi...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #18 from Will Benton wi...@redhat.com ---
Thanks for making these changes, Tim.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= 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]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (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.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 81920 bytes in 4 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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).
[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 requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[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
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
- ok since upstream build isn't compatible
[-]: 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]:
[Bug 1010512] Review Request: mesos - Cluster Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010512 Timothy St. Clair tstcl...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #19 from Timothy St. Clair tstcl...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: mesos Short Description: Cluster manager for sharing distributed application frameworks Owners: tstclair Branches: f20 InitialCC: bigdata-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1010512] Review Request: mesos - Cluster Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010512
--- Comment #17 from Timothy St. Clair tstcl...@redhat.com ---
Updated, same URLs. Notes are inlined below.
- mesos must BuildRequire: python2-devel. See
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires
- done
- The spec must work from a pristine upstream tarball unless there are legal
reasons why we cannot. Please move all bundled library removal in the %prep
scriptlet and use an upstream tarball.
- done
- Integration.patch is 1.8 mb and primarily consists of file moves, which
makes
it tedious to inspect. Please move files in %prep rather than in a patch!
In
addition, consider splitting up Fedora integration changes into several
smaller
patches that each reflect a high-level change.
#
# NOTE: The modifications have been broken into three patches which are
# consistent with *many* other projects, and are tracking @
#
# https://github.com/timothysc/mesos
# Full integration stream is:
https://github.com/timothysc/mesos/tree/0.16.0-integ
#
# The shuffle patch is maintained because it is a
# patch that is trying to be pushed upstream, thus breaking it out as a series
# of steps doesn't make sense, but has been isolated into it's own patch per
review.
- mesos should not own %{_unitdir}.
- done
- The python interface should go in %{python_sitearch}. As it stands, it
looks like it's getting built but not installed. (It looks like the makefile
needs to call out to setup.py.)
Currently upstream builds a client library, and that the cli tools do not
depend on. There are open upstream JIRA's around language bindings, and I'm
tracking. However, I don't want to prematurely put them into the wild until
they have vetted. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-899
This also holds for the java interface which also has the same issue atm.
- I think %{python_sitelib} is a more appropriate place for the (internal?)
modules that get installed in libexecdir:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Libexecdir If these are
part of the mesos module (from the client library), I think they'll need to
go
in sitearch since the rest of the mesos module is arch-specific.
- done
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1010512] Review Request: mesos - Cluster Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010512 --- Comment #13 from Timothy St. Clair tstcl...@redhat.com --- stout is now retired as a separate package. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1010512] Review Request: mesos - Cluster Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010512 --- Comment #14 from Will Benton wi...@redhat.com --- The generated tarball policy doesn't apply in this case if there is nothing in the upstream tarball that we're legally encumbered from uploading to SCM. Please move the bundled library deletion to your %prep scriptlet and work from a pristine source. I'll update the rest of the review in a separate comment. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1010512] Review Request: mesos - Cluster Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010512 --- Comment #15 from Timothy St. Clair tstcl...@redhat.com --- updated, with same urls. You will notice I conditionalized the .spec file around that. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1010512] Review Request: mesos - Cluster Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010512
--- Comment #16 from Will Benton wi...@redhat.com ---
(In reply to Timothy St. Clair from comment #15)
updated, with same urls.
You will notice I conditionalized the .spec file around that.
I did! Thanks for changing the default behavior; you can remove those
conditionals and related comments when you make these last few changes. Here's
the rest of my updated review (reflecting the spec as of earlier today with the
generated tarball):
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
- mesos must BuildRequire: python2-devel. See
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires
- The spec must work from a pristine upstream tarball unless there are legal
reasons why we cannot. Please move all bundled library removal in the %prep
scriptlet and use an upstream tarball.
- Integration.patch is 1.8 mb and primarily consists of file moves, which makes
it tedious to inspect. Please move files in %prep rather than in a patch! In
addition, consider splitting up Fedora integration changes into several smaller
patches that each reflect a high-level change.
- mesos should not own %{_unitdir}.
- The python interface should go in %{python_sitearch}. As it stands, it looks
like it's getting built but not installed. (It looks like the makefile needs
to call out to setup.py.)
- I think %{python_sitelib} is a more appropriate place for the (internal?)
modules that get installed in libexecdir:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Libexecdir If these are
part of the mesos module (from the client library), I think they'll need to go
in sitearch since the rest of the mesos module is arch-specific.
- I'll buy that the rpmlint error is possibly spurious, and I see that you've
opened a JIRA upstream about it.
- Consider splitting the web UI out into a noarch subpackage. Also, you should
track the handwavy future of the Web Assets work, since that will impact this
package sooner or later:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Web_Assets#Handwavy_Future
= 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]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Apache (v2.0), BSD (3 clause), Unknown or generated. 223 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/wibenton/devel/review/1010512-mesos/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/systemd, /etc/tmpfiles.d
[!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/systemd/system(systemd)
[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.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (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.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 81920 bytes in 4 files.
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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).
[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
[Bug 1010512] Review Request: mesos - Cluster Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010512 --- Comment #10 from Timothy St. Clair tstcl...@redhat.com --- Updated, I believe I've addressed all the items listed above. I've removed the sub-packaging too, as it doesn't exist anywhere else. I will need to remove any other sub-packages that exist. srpm: http://tstclair.fedorapeople.org/mesos/mesos-0.16.0-2.d0cb03f.fc21.src.rpm spec: http://tstclair.fedorapeople.org/mesos/mesos.spec -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1010512] Review Request: mesos - Cluster Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010512 --- Comment #11 from Timothy St. Clair tstcl...@redhat.com --- I will need to remove any other sub-packages that exist. from fedora respos -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1010512] Review Request: mesos - Cluster Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010512 --- Comment #12 from Timothy St. Clair tstcl...@redhat.com --- Update includes a generate-tarball.sh mod with switched to dual purpose the spec file, in the vain that some day we can just pull directly from github. ref:https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#When_Upstream_uses_Prohibited_Code -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1010512] Review Request: mesos - Cluster Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010512
--- Comment #7 from Will Benton wi...@redhat.com ---
Some issues here, but the most serious one is bundling. (It basically doesn't
matter that upstream is bundling.)
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
You should replace the unversioned python-devel BR with python2-devel or
python3-devel as appropriate.
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
mesos-devel should own %{includedir}/mesos. Currently stout and
libprocess are in there as well, but these probably shouldn't be.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
as above
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
But see below re: smp_mflags
[!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
leveldb, stout, and libprocess are all available from separate upstreams
(stout and leveldb are already in Fedora). If you can justify exceptions
(seems likely for stout and possible for libprocess?), then apply for them;
otherwise, mesos will need to be patched to use system copies. Other bundled
libraries in 3rdparty should be removed before building.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[!]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
as above re: bundled libs
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (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]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[!]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
Please comment the ExcludeArch with justification.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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).
[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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[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
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]:
[Bug 1010512] Review Request: mesos - Cluster Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010512 --- Comment #8 from Will Benton wi...@redhat.com --- We also need to work from a pristine source and a patchset. Since the delta between upstream and Tim's fork is very large (primarily due to removing binaries), the package should probably remove binaries in %prep instead of as a patch. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1010512] Review Request: mesos - Cluster Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010512
--- Comment #9 from Timothy St. Clair tstcl...@redhat.com ---
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
mesos-devel should own %{includedir}/mesos. Currently stout and
libprocess are in there as well, but these probably shouldn't be.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
as above
[!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
leveldb, stout, and libprocess are all available from separate upstreams
(stout and leveldb are already in Fedora). If you can justify exceptions
(seems likely for stout and possible for libprocess?), then apply for them;
otherwise, mesos will need to be patched to use system copies. Other bundled
libraries in 3rdparty should be removed before building.
Both stout and libprocess breakout subsuming were a result of numerous
conversations with upstream. Originally BenH had intended for them to exist as
separate entities, but they were so tightly coupled with the root project that
the canonical source is the mesos project. The resolution that made the most
sense was instead to kill off the separate packages before they hit a
distribution, as they are not versioned independently of mesos. However, a
compromise was to create sub-packages to allow folks to use the libraries. I
supposed I could leave the sub-package breakout in the .spec and just have a
mesos-devel. From everyone's perspective is much more simple, should the
desire exist to breakout sub-packages for other reasons, the plumbing will
exist.
leveldb should not exist, it was likely a result from a merged update.
[!]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
as above re: bundled libs
[!]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
Please comment the ExcludeArch with justification.
Sources contain code which currently do not compile on arm, and upstream has no
explicit intent to support + not all dependencies exist iirc.
[!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
not a blocker, but please justify in a spec comment why it isn't there.
Currently not capable with upstream
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
Tests skipped due to problems in mock; not a blocker
Tests fail in mock, but succeed outside, some are intermittent.
[!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
Please use %global throughout.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1010512] Review Request: mesos - Cluster Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010512 Will Benton wi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|wi...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1010512] Review Request: mesos - Cluster Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010512 Timothy St. Clair tstcl...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Assignee|bjoern.es...@gmail.com |nob...@fedoraproject.org Flags|fedora-review? | |needinfo?(bjoern.esser@gmai | |l.com) | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1010512] Review Request: mesos - Cluster Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010512 --- Comment #6 from Timothy St. Clair tstcl...@redhat.com --- updated spec: http://tstclair.fedorapeople.org/mesos/mesos.spec updated srpm: http://tstclair.fedorapeople.org/mesos/mesos-0.16.0-1.d3557e8.fc21.src.rpm Notes: mesos.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-setgroups /usr/lib64/libmesos-0.16.0.so.0.0.0 ^ False positive imo. mesos.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/sysconfig/mesos/mesos-master-env mesos.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/sysconfig/mesos/mesos-deploy-env mesos.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/sysconfig/mesos/mesos-slave-env mesos.x86_64: W: log-files-without-logrotate /var/log/mesos ^ expected mesos.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mesos-stop-slaves.sh mesos.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mesos-stop-cluster.sh mesos.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mesos-log mesos.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mesos mesos.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mesos-local mesos.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mesos-start-cluster.sh mesos.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mesos-daemon.sh mesos.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mesos-slave mesos.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mesos-ps mesos.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mesos-tail mesos.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mesos-master mesos.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mesos-start-masters.sh mesos.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mesos-stop-masters.sh mesos.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mesos-resolve mesos.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mesos-execute mesos.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mesos-cat mesos.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mesos-start-slaves.sh ^ non-blocking -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1010512] Review Request: mesos - Cluster Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010512 Timothy St. Clair tstcl...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(bjoern.esser@gmai ||l.com) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1010512] Review Request: mesos - Cluster Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010512 --- Comment #5 from Timothy St. Clair tstcl...@redhat.com --- Any update? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1010512] Review Request: mesos - Cluster Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010512 Timothy St. Clair tstcl...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1010003 (bigdata-review) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=5CFh6Nw90ba=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1010512] Review Request: mesos - Cluster Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010512 Timothy St. Clair tstcl...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|package-review@lists.fedora | |project.org | --- Comment #1 from Timothy St. Clair tstcl...@redhat.com --- Of note: currently there are java build products, but they are not part of the installation. I'm currently working with upstream on fixing, but it will likely not be in this version. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=GUoKx2fs8Wa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1010512] Review Request: mesos - Cluster Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010512 Timothy St. Clair tstcl...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bjoern.es...@gmail.com, ||i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com, ||m...@redhat.com, ||tstcl...@redhat.com Depends On||994152 (libprocess) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=hHe5UeV5Doa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1010512] Review Request: mesos - Cluster Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010512 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||652183 (FE-JAVASIG) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ceGhrdCzWoa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
