[Bug 226222] Merge Review: oprofile
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226222 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Last Closed|2010-07-07 23:33:04 |2012-04-05 08:04:58 --- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-04-05 08:04:58 EDT --- Fantastic, thanks for the quick response! APPROVED, closing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 226222] Merge Review: oprofile
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226222 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||panem...@gmail.com --- Comment #10 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com 2012-04-05 08:18:15 EDT --- Wow! this review is finished. Few years back I tried to review this but failed due to lack of package maintainer response. Thanks Jon! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 226222] Merge Review: oprofile
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226222 --- Comment #11 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-04-05 09:10:34 EDT --- No problem. :) A lot of packages sort of eventually fall into compliance anyway. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 226222] Merge Review: oprofile
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226222 --- Comment #8 from William Cohen wco...@redhat.com 2012-04-04 16:43:49 EDT --- oprofile-0.9.7-3 going through the build system addresses most of the points in comment #3 and #6. profiler is listed as a noun in: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/profiler Probably should remove the .a and .la files from oprofile-jit. However, oprofile-jit really does need the .so libraries. Would like to remove the oprofile-devel sub-package entirely. the eclipse tools shouldn't require it any more. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 226222] Merge Review: oprofile
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226222 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||limburg...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|limburg...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-04-03 15:27:13 EDT --- Fresh review. Good: - rpmlint checks return: oprofile.spec:129: W: macro-in-comment %doc There is a unescaped macro after a shell style comment in the specfile. Macros are expanded everywhere, so check if it can cause a problem in this case and escape the macro with another leading % if appropriate. oprofile.spec:198: W: macro-in-%changelog %pre Macros are expanded in %changelog too, which can in unfortunate cases lead to the package not building at all, or other subtle unexpected conditions that affect the build. Even when that doesn't happen, the expansion results in possibly rewriting history on subsequent package revisions and generally odd entries eg. in source rpms, which is rarely wanted. Avoid use of macros in %changelog altogether, or use two '%'s to escape them, like '%%foo'. Trivial to fix. oprofile.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) profiler - profile, profiles, profiled The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. Ignore. oprofile.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/oprofile-0.9.7/COPYING oprofile-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/oprofile-0.9.7/daemon/liblegacy/p_module.h The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file, possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF. Ignore, fixable upstream. oprofile.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary opjitconv Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. oprofile.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary oprofiled Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. Fix if feasible. oprofile.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%postun userdel We shouldn't remove created users or groups. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UsersAndGroups oprofile-devel.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Header files and libraries for developing apps which will use oprofile. Summary ends with a dot. Trivial fix. oprofile-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. Fix if feasible. oprofile-gui.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot C GUI for oprofile. Summary ends with a dot. Trivial to fix. oprofile-gui.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US oprof - prof, proof, o prof The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. Ignore. oprofile-gui.x86_64: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. oprofile-gui.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary oprof_start Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. oprofile-jit.x86_64: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. Fix if feasible. oprofile-jit.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/oprofile/libopagent.a oprofile-jit.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/oprofile/libjvmti_oprofile.a oprofile-jit.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/oprofile/libjvmti_oprofile.so oprofile-jit.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/oprofile/libopagent.so A development file (usually source code) is located in a non-devel package. If you want to include source code in your package, be sure to create a development package. Should the .a be included, and should the .so files be in -devel? oprofile-jit.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/ld.so.conf.d/oprofile-x86_64.conf A non-executable file in your package is being installed in /etc, but is not a configuration file. All non-executable files in /etc should be configuration files. Mark the file as %config in the spec file. Fix. - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license ( ) OK, text in %doc, matches source Says GPLv2, should be GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+. - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream - package compiles on devel (x86_64) - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime
[Bug 226222] Merge Review: oprofile
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226222 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-04-03 15:38:28 EDT --- Ignore -static, I see that that was done, and I missed it. Also, I tried building on rawhide, and it wants java-1.6.0-openjdk, and so fails. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 226222] Merge Review: oprofile
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226222 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|panem...@gmail.com | --- Comment #5 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com 2010-12-08 05:02:15 EST --- Unfortunately no time in future to work on this. Removing myself. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 226222] Merge Review: oprofile
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226222 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Flag||needinfo?(jgar...@redhat.co ||m) --- Comment #4 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com 2010-07-08 06:47:42 EDT --- also, this should add -static package -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 226222] Merge Review: oprofile
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226222
Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||Reopened
Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED
CC||panem...@gmail.com
Resolution|CURRENTRELEASE |
--- Comment #3 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com 2010-07-08 06:46:40 EDT
---
Hi Jeff,
Can you please fix following issues and build new oprofile in rawhide?
1) Use macros as per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:RPMMacros
Replace /etc occurrences with %{_sysconfdir}
Replace /usr/share occurrences with %{_datadir}
2) mixing of macro style should be avoided
you have used %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Using_.25.7Bbuildroot.7D_and_.25.7Boptflags.7D_vs_.24RPM_BUILD_ROOT_and_.24RPM_OPT_FLAGS
3) Good if you will change
make DESTDIR=${RPM_BUILD_ROOT} install
to
make install DESTDIR=${RPM_BUILD_ROOT} INSTALL=install -p
also add -p to all install commands
This will make sure keeping upstream timestamps.
4)Buildroot is not required,%clean is not needed, remove cleaning of buildroot
in %install.
5) see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Sourceforge.net and
add source url as
Source0: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
6) Drop
BuildRequires: binutils-devel
as this will get pulled by binutils-static
7) see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Shared_libraries
and drop
Requires(post): /sbin/ldconfig
Requires(postun): /sbin/ldconfig
Requires: /etc/ld.so.conf.d
8)Good to fix following rpmlint output messages (Included only messages that
need to be fixed)
oprofile.src:21: W: macro-in-comment %{ix86}
oprofile.src:21: W: macro-in-comment %{arm}
oprofile.src:136: W: macro-in-comment %doc
oprofile.src:144: W: macro-in-comment %{_includedir}
oprofile.src:157: W: macro-in-comment %{_libdir}
oprofile.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch83: oprofile-0.9.3-xen.patch
oprofile.src: W: invalid-url Source0: oprofile-0.9.6.tar.gz
oprofile-devel.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Header files and libraries
for developing apps which will use oprofile.
oprofile-devel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/lib64/libopabi.a
oprofile-devel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/include/op_list.h
oprofile-devel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/include/op_sample_file.h
oprofile-devel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/include/op_config.h
oprofile-devel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/lib64/liboputil.a
oprofile-devel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/include/odb.h
oprofile-devel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/include/op_types.h
oprofile-devel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/lib64/libop.a
oprofile-devel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/include/op_cpu_type.h
oprofile-devel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/lib64/liboputil++.a
oprofile-devel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/lib64/libodb.a
oprofile-devel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/include/op_events.h
oprofile-gui.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot C GUI for oprofile.
oprofile-jit.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/oprofile/libopagent.a
oprofile-jit.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc
/etc/ld.so.conf.d/oprofile-x86_64.conf
oprofile-jit.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/oprofile/libjvmti_oprofile.a
oprofile-jit.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/oprofile/libjvmti_oprofile.so
oprofile-jit.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/oprofile/libopagent.so
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 226222] Merge Review: oprofile
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226222 Jeff Garzik jgar...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(jgar...@redhat.co | |m) | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 226222] Merge Review: oprofile
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226222 Jeff Garzik jgar...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC||jgar...@redhat.com Resolution||CURRENTRELEASE --- Comment #2 from Jeff Garzik jgar...@redhat.com 2010-07-07 23:33:04 EDT --- This was merged long ago, closing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
