[Bug 1861887] Review Request: rocksdb - A Persistent Key-Value Store for Flash and RAM Storage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1861887 Jonny Heggheim changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Assignee|zebo...@gmail.com |heg...@gmail.com Last Closed||2020-09-03 10:32:59 --- Comment #5 from Jonny Heggheim --- Have fixed the issues and resurrected the package -- 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
[Bug 1861887] Review Request: rocksdb - A Persistent Key-Value Store for Flash and RAM Storage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1861887
--- Comment #4 from Jonny Heggheim ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #3)
> - %{__make} → make
>
> Variable starting with __ are for rpm private use.
>
> - Add a comment above the patch to explain what it does/why it is needed
>
> - Rename your patch to have a meaningful name
>
> Patch0:
> https://patch-diff.githubusercontent.com/raw/facebook/rocksdb/pull/7187.
> patch#/0001-your-fancy-name.patch
>
> Package approved, please fix the aforementioned issue before import.
Thanks for the review, I will fix those issues before import.
--
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
[Bug 1861887] Review Request: rocksdb - A Persistent Key-Value Store for Flash and RAM Storage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1861887
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- %{__make} → make
Variable starting with __ are for rpm private use.
- Add a comment above the patch to explain what it does/why it is needed
- Rename your patch to have a meaningful name
Patch0:
https://patch-diff.githubusercontent.com/raw/facebook/rocksdb/pull/7187.patch#/0001-your-fancy-name.patch
Package approved, please fix the aforementioned issue before import.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package does not use a name that already exists.
Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rocksdb
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[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: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License, Version
2", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "BSD 3-clause "New" or
"Revised" License", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later",
"Public domain", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", "Apache License
2.0". 1606 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck
in /home/bob/packaging/review/rocksdb/review-rocksdb/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.
[-]: 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 20480 bytes in 2 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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
[Bug 1861887] Review Request: rocksdb - A Persistent Key-Value Store for Flash and RAM Storage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1861887 --- Comment #2 from Jonny Heggheim --- RocksDB was orphaned for over 8 weeks, a new review is needed. The old review is bug #1250025 -- 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
[Bug 1861887] Review Request: rocksdb - A Persistent Key-Value Store for Flash and RAM Storage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1861887 Jonny Heggheim changed: What|Removed |Added Link ID||Fedora Pagure ||releng/issue/9628 -- 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
[Bug 1861887] Review Request: rocksdb - A Persistent Key-Value Store for Flash and RAM Storage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1861887 Jonny Heggheim changed: What|Removed |Added Link ID||Github ||facebook/rocksdb/issues/718 ||8 -- 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
[Bug 1861887] Review Request: rocksdb - A Persistent Key-Value Store for Flash and RAM Storage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1861887 Jonny Heggheim changed: What|Removed |Added Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value --- Comment #1 from Jonny Heggheim --- The build fails on i686 https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=48125640 I have created an issue upstream https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/7188 -- 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
