[Bug 1350029] Review Request: libi40iw - userspace rdma library for Intel Ethernet Connection X722

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350029

Mattia Verga  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|CLOSED
 Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW)
 Resolution|--- |NOTABUG
   Assignee|jarodwil...@gmail.com   |nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Flags|fedora-review+  |
   |needinfo?(tatyana.e.nikolov |
   |a...@intel.com)|
Last Closed||2021-07-12 16:05:29



--- Comment #35 from Mattia Verga  ---
Package orphaned, closing as DEADREVIEW



Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841
[Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a
sponsor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449
[Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter response
should be blocking this bug.
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Bug 1350029] Review Request: libi40iw - userspace rdma library for Intel Ethernet Connection X722

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350029



--- Comment #34 from Mattia Verga  ---
I've received no response, so I've filed a request to releng to orphan the
package: https://pagure.io/releng/issue/10205


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Bug 1350029] Review Request: libi40iw - userspace rdma library for Intel Ethernet Connection X722

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350029

Mattia Verga  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||mattia.ve...@protonmail.com
  Flags||needinfo?(tatyana.e.nikolov
   ||a...@intel.com)



--- Comment #33 from Mattia Verga  ---
So, this package was never imported in Fedora.

Tatyana, are you still interested in importing and building for Fedora, or
should we properly retire it?


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Bug 1350029] Review Request: libi40iw - userspace rdma library for Intel Ethernet Connection X722

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350029



--- Comment #32 from Jarod Wilson  ---
(In reply to tatyana from comment #31)
> Thank you for the information.
> 
> Just to clarify this package was released as part of RedHat 7.3. There is
> another libi40iw bug report (id=1381746) which targets RehHat 7.4. We are
> still working on preparing patches for the new libi40iw package. Are you
> referring to a new package for RedHat 7.4?

No, this is parallel to Red Hat Enterprise Linux work, libi40iw should also be
built for Fedora. This particular bug was to get the package into Fedora, where
it needs to be accepted before it goes into RHEL, we're just missing the final
step where it's actually built in Fedora.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1350029] Review Request: libi40iw - userspace rdma library for Intel Ethernet Connection X722

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350029



--- Comment #31 from tatyana  ---
Thank you for the information.

Just to clarify this package was released as part of RedHat 7.3. There is
another libi40iw bug report (id=1381746) which targets RehHat 7.4. We are still
working on preparing patches for the new libi40iw package. Are you referring to
a new package for RedHat 7.4?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1350029] Review Request: libi40iw - userspace rdma library for Intel Ethernet Connection X722

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350029



--- Comment #30 from Igor Gnatenko  ---
(In reply to tatyana from comment #29)
> I thought that this package has been released and no further action was
> required. I don't know who needs to update the bug status.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=22609

I don't see any builds of this package in Fedora. So you need to:
1. import spec and oter stuff into git repo
2. build in koji
3. submit updates in bodhi

You can always ask someone who sponsored you into packagers group as it's his
duty to help.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1350029] Review Request: libi40iw - userspace rdma library for Intel Ethernet Connection X722

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350029

tatyana  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(tatyana.e.nikolov |
   |a...@intel.com)|



--- Comment #29 from tatyana  ---
I thought that this package has been released and no further action was
required. I don't know who needs to update the bug status.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1350029] Review Request: libi40iw - userspace rdma library for Intel Ethernet Connection X722

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350029

Igor Gnatenko  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|POST
  Flags||needinfo?(tatyana.e.nikolov
   ||a...@intel.com)



--- Comment #28 from Igor Gnatenko  ---
ping?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1350029] Review Request: libi40iw - userspace rdma library for Intel Ethernet Connection X722

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350029



--- Comment #27 from Jarod Wilson  ---
Ah, the problem was that the bug was still assigned to my RH login instead of
the one I have on file with the Fedora package database. I'm updating some
permissions on the package now, so you can build for Fedora 24 (just released a
week or two ago, iirc) and Fedora 23 as well.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1350029] Review Request: libi40iw - userspace rdma library for Intel Ethernet Connection X722

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350029



--- Comment #26 from tatyana  ---
Ok, I see the package request has been approved. Thank you.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1350029] Review Request: libi40iw - userspace rdma library for Intel Ethernet Connection X722

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350029



--- Comment #25 from tatyana  ---
Now the sync is working. Which collection should I choose?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1350029] Review Request: libi40iw - userspace rdma library for Intel Ethernet Connection X722

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350029



--- Comment #24 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/libi40iw

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1350029] Review Request: libi40iw - userspace rdma library for Intel Ethernet Connection X722

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350029

Igor Gnatenko  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|ja...@redhat.com|jarodwil...@gmail.com



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1350029] Review Request: libi40iw - userspace rdma library for Intel Ethernet Connection X722

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350029



--- Comment #23 from tatyana  ---
Yeah, that too is an issue.
I am trying to submit a new package request, but when I enter the ticket number
= bugzilla id = 1350029 and click sync, I get "Review not approved by the
assignee of the ticket jarodwil...@gmail.com"

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1350029] Review Request: libi40iw - userspace rdma library for Intel Ethernet Connection X722

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350029



--- Comment #22 from Jarod Wilson  ---
(In reply to tatyana from comment #21)
> Apparently, I need to fix the ticket number - should I send another package
> request. Is there a way to edit the first one?

Just gave it a try myself, I think the issue was the package name:

•user: jwilson request package: libi40iw on branch master
•user: jwilson request package: libi40iw on branch f24
•user: jwilson request package: libi40iw on branch f23

I don't see anything about fixing a ticket number yet anyway...

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1350029] Review Request: libi40iw - userspace rdma library for Intel Ethernet Connection X722

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350029



--- Comment #21 from tatyana  ---
Apparently, I need to fix the ticket number - should I send another package
request. Is there a way to edit the first one?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1350029] Review Request: libi40iw - userspace rdma library for Intel Ethernet Connection X722

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350029



--- Comment #20 from tatyana  ---
I submitted a new package request: 
•user: tatyana request package: libi40iw-0.5.225-1.el7.src.rpm on branch master

I am not sure if branch master was the right one.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1350029] Review Request: libi40iw - userspace rdma library for Intel Ethernet Connection X722

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350029



--- Comment #19 from Jarod Wilson  ---
(In reply to tatyana from comment #18)
> My username is tatyana

Ah, wasn't in the packager group yet, and I was apparently only looking within
that group. I've added you to the group and sponsored you now.

I believe the next step is:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers?rd=PackageMaintainers/Join#Add_Package_to_Source_Code_Management_.28SCM.29_system_and_Set_Owner

Should be able to request a new package there, with you as the maintainer.
Please set me (FAS account name jwilson) as a co-maintainer.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1350029] Review Request: libi40iw - userspace rdma library for Intel Ethernet Connection X722

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350029



--- Comment #18 from tatyana  ---
My username is tatyana

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1350029] Review Request: libi40iw - userspace rdma library for Intel Ethernet Connection X722

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350029



--- Comment #17 from Jarod Wilson  ---
(In reply to tatyana from comment #14)
> I have an account in the Fedora Account System. Let me know if more actions
> on my part are required.

What is your FAS username? I'm struggling to find it at the moment. :)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1350029] Review Request: libi40iw - userspace rdma library for Intel Ethernet Connection X722

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350029



--- Comment #16 from Jarod Wilson  ---
(In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #15)
> Unfortunately it's not yet good package.
> 
> > %defattr(-,root,root,-)
> MUST be dropped

This isn't a "MUST" from my reading of things.

> > %clean
> > rm -rf %{buildroot}
> MUST be dropped

This is under "SHOULD" in the packaging guidelines, not "MUST".

> > make %{?_smp_mflags}
> COULD be replaced iwth %make_build
> 
> > make DESTDIR=%{buildroot} install
> COULD be replace with %make_install

Potayto, potahto.

> > %setup -q -n %{name}-%{version}
> COULD be changed to %setup -q or to %autosetup

I did miss this one, could easily be just %setup -q, since '%{name}-%{version}'
is already the default name things are expected to be in, but I wouldn't
consider this a blocking issue. Easily fixed in the next bump.

> > BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
> MUST be dropped

Also a "SHOULD", not a "MUST".

> > Group: System Environment/Libraries
> > Group: System Environment/Libraries
> COULD be dropped
> 
> > %package devel-static
> It's actually not devel-static, but just static. Please adjust.

Take a look at every other libibverbs hardware driver (libocrdma, libcxgb4,
libmlx5, etc), this is how all of them look. This is following precedent.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1350029] Review Request: libi40iw - userspace rdma library for Intel Ethernet Connection X722

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350029

Igor Gnatenko  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ignate...@redhat.com



--- Comment #15 from Igor Gnatenko  ---
Unfortunately it's not yet good package.

> %defattr(-,root,root,-)
MUST be dropped

> %clean
> rm -rf %{buildroot}
MUST be dropped

> make %{?_smp_mflags}
COULD be replaced iwth %make_build

> make DESTDIR=%{buildroot} install
COULD be replace with %make_install

> %setup -q -n %{name}-%{version}
COULD be changed to %setup -q or to %autosetup

> BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
MUST be dropped

> Group: System Environment/Libraries
> Group: System Environment/Libraries
COULD be dropped

> %package devel-static
It's actually not devel-static, but just static. Please adjust.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1350029] Review Request: libi40iw - userspace rdma library for Intel Ethernet Connection X722

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350029



--- Comment #14 from tatyana  ---
I have an account in the Fedora Account System. Let me know if more actions on
my part are required.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1350029] Review Request: libi40iw - userspace rdma library for Intel Ethernet Connection X722

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350029

Jarod Wilson  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||jarodwil...@gmail.com
  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #13 from Jarod Wilson  ---
It's my non-RH login that actually has Fedora Package Review Approval and
Sponsorship privs, so setting fedora-review flag to + now. Do you have an
account in the Fedora Account System yet? Once you do, I can officially sponsor
you as a new Fedora packager (if you're not already?).

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1350029] Review Request: libi40iw - userspace rdma library for Intel Ethernet Connection X722

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350029

Jarod Wilson  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)



--- Comment #12 from Jarod Wilson  ---
Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
===
- Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
  Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir.
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages


= 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.

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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or
 generated". 16 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/jwilson/review-libi40iw/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
 must be documented in the spec.
[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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
 Note: No (noreplace) in %config /etc/libibverbs.d/i40iw.driver
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
 Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 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 %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[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 does not use a name that already exists.
[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]: Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if
 present.
 Note: Package has .a files: libi40iw-devel-static.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

[Bug 1350029] Review Request: libi40iw - userspace rdma library for Intel Ethernet Connection X722

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350029



--- Comment #11 from Jarod Wilson  ---
(In reply to tatyana from comment #10)
> Assuming the auto-generated files got messed up, I rebuilt the package. I
> didn't change the version and there aren't source changes. Could you let me
> know if the issue above is resolved.

Yes, thank you, I'm getting through the build just fine now, more detailed
review notes forthcoming.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1350029] Review Request: libi40iw - userspace rdma library for Intel Ethernet Connection X722

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350029



--- Comment #10 from tatyana  ---
Assuming the auto-generated files got messed up, I rebuilt the package. I
didn't change the version and there aren't source changes. Could you let me
know if the issue above is resolved.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1350029] Review Request: libi40iw - userspace rdma library for Intel Ethernet Connection X722

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350029



--- Comment #9 from Jarod Wilson  ---
(In reply to tatyana from comment #8)
> The package is updated. The new version libi40iw-0.5.225.tar.gz is available
> at the URL provided above. All the changes can be viewed in the public git
> repository.

Hm. The prior version built in mock just fine when I ran fedora-review, but
this latest version fails with the following error:

(CDPATH="${ZSH_VERSION+.}:" && cd . && /bin/sh
/builddir/build/BUILD/libi40iw-0.5.225/config/missing autoheader)
/builddir/build/BUILD/libi40iw-0.5.225/config/missing: line 81: autoheader:
command not found
WARNING: 'autoheader' is missing on your system.
 You should only need it if you modified 'acconfig.h' or
 'configure.ac' or m4 files included by 'configure.ac'.
 The 'autoheader' program is part of the GNU Autoconf package:
 
 It also requires GNU m4 and Perl in order to run:
 
 
Makefile:404: recipe for target 'config.h.in' failed
make: *** [config.h.in] Error 127

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1350029] Review Request: libi40iw - userspace rdma library for Intel Ethernet Connection X722

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350029



--- Comment #8 from tatyana  ---
The package is updated. The new version libi40iw-0.5.225.tar.gz is available at
the URL provided above. All the changes can be viewed in the public git
repository.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1350029] Review Request: libi40iw - userspace rdma library for Intel Ethernet Connection X722

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350029



--- Comment #7 from tatyana  ---
[!]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
 Note: No (noreplace) in %config /etc/libibverbs.d/i40iw.driver

The file /etc/libibverbs.d/i40iw.driver contains the driver name to be used by
ib verbs and is not intended to be edited by the user. This file stays the same
in different library versions (since the driver name is the same). If the file
is somehow modified by the user, it can cause issues and it is preferred to be
overwritten by the next libi40iw install.

We are working on fixes for the other items on the list.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1350029] Review Request: libi40iw - userspace rdma library for Intel Ethernet Connection X722

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350029



--- Comment #6 from Jarod Wilson  ---
Using fedora-review's template, with notes added after anything marked as
!/fail:

Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
===
- Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
  Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir.
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages

Waiving this issue, as this is the norm for libibverbs plugins.

= 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.

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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or
 generated". 16 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/jwilson/review-libi40iw/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
 must be documented in the spec.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[!]: Changelog in prescribed format.

There should be a blank line between changelog entries

[!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
 Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required

Present in the spec, which is apparently no longer okay. This is actually news
to me.

[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
 Note: No (noreplace) in %config /etc/libibverbs.d/i40iw.driver

I missed that this maybe should be marked %config(noreplace), but will also
accept justification for why it shouldn't be. If it isn't, i40iw.driver
modified by the user becomes i40iw.driver.rpmorig, I believe.

[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
 Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines

Just a few little things to fix up as noted in this comment.

[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 %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[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 does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, 

[Bug 1350029] Review Request: libi40iw - userspace rdma library for Intel Ethernet Connection X722

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350029

tatyana  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(tatyana.e.nikolov |
   |a...@intel.com)|



--- Comment #5 from tatyana  ---
(In reply to Jarod Wilson from comment #4)
> Just let me know when there's an updated package I can look over, I think we
> should be pretty close once the initial review pass notes are addressed.
The package is updated. The new version libi40iw-0.5.224.tar.gz is available at
the URL provided above. All the changes can be viewed in the public git
repository.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1350029] Review Request: libi40iw - userspace rdma library for Intel Ethernet Connection X722

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350029

Jarod Wilson  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||tatyana.e.nikol...@intel.co
   ||m
  Flags||fedora-review?
   ||needinfo?(tatyana.e.nikolov
   ||a...@intel.com)



--- Comment #4 from Jarod Wilson  ---
Just let me know when there's an updated package I can look over, I think we
should be pretty close once the initial review pass notes are addressed.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1350029] Review Request: libi40iw - userspace rdma library for Intel Ethernet Connection X722

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350029



--- Comment #3 from Jarod Wilson  ---
Some further reading on the licensing issue and a bit of back-channel
discussion, and what I now believe to be the thing to do for #7 is "License:
GPLv2 or BSD", rename COPYING to LICENSE-GPL and include a new LICENSE-BSD file
so the text of both licenses is easily distributable with the binaries. The
only GPLv3+ files are config/config.*, which aren't part of the distributed
binaries, and License: is only in reference to distributed binaries, so no
reference to GPLv3+ is required here.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1350029] Review Request: libi40iw - userspace rdma library for Intel Ethernet Connection X722

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350029



--- Comment #2 from Jarod Wilson  ---
Okay, I've done an initial pass through the spec, and a few things of note to
take care of:

1) There's mixed use of both $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot}. These two are
equivalent, but it's preferred that you only use one or the other consistently
through the spec.

2) The COPYING file these days needs to be listed in the spec file under
%license, rather than as %doc.

3) Formatting on the changelog entry is slightly off, there should be a space
between the initial "*" and the date entry, and the version at the tail end of
the line should be version-release, i.e. "0.5.223-1".

4) Fedora guidelines complain about unversioned library files dropped straight
into %libdir, though putting a .a file into a -devel-static package seems to be
the norm for all rdma hardware-specific libibverbs-based driver libs like this,
so I think we can leave that as-is.

5) the Source: url to the tarball is a bit off, it says ./downloads/i40iw/.,
but it should be ./downloads/libi40iw/. instead.

6) the file dropped under libibverbs.d/ should probably be marked at %config,
as you can edit the file to alter behavior, and don't want that overwritten by
a package update. I've looked at another libibverbs driver or two, and they're
done as %config as well.

7) The spec says license GPL/BSD, and looking at the various sources, that
seems accurate, as I see both GPLv2 and GPLv3, and various BSD license text in
the source. However, the COPYING file looks to only mention GPLv2. May need
multiple license files here to cover all cases. Also, rpmlint complains that
"GPL/BSD" isn't a valid value for the License: field. Looking at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines I think "GPLv2+
and BSD" or "GPLv2+ or BSD" might be appropriate.

8) BuildRequires on libibverbs-devel are not versioned, which may well be just
fine, but I'd like to double-check that there isn't some minimal version
required for proper libi40iw support. (I seem to recall the hfi1 bits requiring
libibverbs 1.3.0 or later, thus why I ask).

9) BuildRoot doesn't actually need to be explicitly defined, and the preference
of late is actually that we let RPM internals figure it out, so the BuildRoot:
... line could actually be removed from the spec. Not a hard requirement
though, particularly if looking to support much older versions of RPM in older
distributions with the same spec.

Most of this is pretty trivial to fix up, but the one that really needs the
most effort is probably the license bit, to make sure we can get through legal
with the proper licensing documented here.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1350029] Review Request: libi40iw - userspace rdma library for Intel Ethernet Connection X722

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350029

Jarod Wilson  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||ja...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ja...@redhat.com



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org