[Bug 717337] Review Request: URCU - Userspace RCU Implementation
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=717337 --- Comment #14 from Yannick Brosseau yannick.bross...@gmail.com 2012-03-05 16:30:19 EST --- Updated version available following your comments http://www.dorsal.polymtl.ca/~ybrosseau/fedora/SPECS/liburcu.spec http://www.dorsal.polymtl.ca/~ybrosseau/fedora/SRPMS/liburcu-0.6.7-1.fc15.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 717337] Review Request: URCU - Userspace RCU Implementation
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=717337
--- Comment #12 from Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com 2012-02-28 13:13:42
EST ---
- Package meets naming and packaging guidelines ***
Upstream tarball is named userspace-rcu. Package is named liburcu.
I'm inclined to let it go, though.
- Spec file matches base package name. - OK
- Spec has consistant macro usage. - OK
- Meets Packaging Guidelines. - OK
- License - LGPLv2+
- License field in spec matches - OK
- License file included in package - ***
License file (LICENSE) isn't in package's %doc.
- Spec in American English - OK
- Spec is legible. - OK
- Sources match upstream md5sum: - OK
a455ea20ca7fc4f259f7b7fd92f0e975da8f0f19 userspace-rcu-0.6.5.tar.bz2
- Package needs ExcludeArch - has it for mips, which we don't support - OK
- BuildRequires correct - OK
- Spec handles locales/find_lang - N/A
- Package is relocatable and has a reason to be. - N/A
- Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. ***
Permissions are fine. %defattr not included, not needed unless you're
backporting to older ELs.
- Package has a correct %clean section. ***
%clean not included, but not needed unless you're backporting to older ELs.
- Package is code or permissible content. - N/A
- Doc subpackage needed/used. - N/A
- Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. - OK
- Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. - OK
- Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun - OK
- .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig - ***
liburcu-devel should have Requires: pkgconfig
- .so files in -devel subpackage. - OK
- -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} - OK
- .la files are removed. - OK
- Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. - OK (tested x86_64)
- Package has no duplicate files in %files. - OK
- Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. - OK
- Package owns all the directories it creates. - ***
Package should own %{includedir}/urcu
- No rpmlint output.
liburcu.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Userspace - User space,
User-space, Users pace
Can be ignored (can also be fixed if you're bored).
liburcu.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/liburcu.so.1.0.0
exit@GLIBC_2.2.5
Does not need fixed, but can be impolite.
- final provides and requires are sane: - OK, modulo pkgconfig item above
SHOULD Items:
- Should build in mock. - OK
- Should build on all supported archs - tested x86_64
- Should function as described. - didn't test
- Should have sane scriptlets. - OK
- Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. -
OK
- Should have dist tag - OK
- Should package latest version ***
Latest is 0.6.7.
Issues:
1. Package license file
2. liburcu-devel should have Requires: pkgconfig
3. Package should own %{includedir}/urcu
4. Should upgrade to 0.6.7.
5. %defattr/%clean can be included if you want, but not required.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 717337] Review Request: URCU - Userspace RCU Implementation
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=717337 Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|nott...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 717337] Review Request: URCU - Userspace RCU Implementation
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=717337 --- Comment #13 from Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com 2012-02-28 13:55:36 EST --- #2 (liburcu-devel requiring pkgconfig) is picked up already, not an issue. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 717337] Review Request: URCU - Userspace RCU Implementation
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=717337 Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mschwe...@gmail.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 717337] Review Request: URCU - Userspace RCU Implementation
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=717337 Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW CC|mschwe...@gmail.com | Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | AssignedTo|mschwe...@gmail.com |nob...@fedoraproject.org --- Comment #11 from Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com 2011-11-19 08:59:06 EST --- I've just discovered that Bill Nottingham (notting) has sponsored you already, so I'm giving back the tickets. :-/ [ Note that I haven't found the first package approval, so something about the process might not be right here. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Get_Sponsored https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packager_sponsor_responsibilities ] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 717337] Review Request: URCU - Userspace RCU Implementation
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=717337 --- Comment #10 from Yannick Brosseau yannick.bross...@gmail.com 2011-10-11 17:16:34 EDT --- Here is the updated version following your comments. Including the new release. http://www.dorsal.polymtl.ca/~ybrosseau/fedora/SPECS/liburcu.spec http://www.dorsal.polymtl.ca/~ybrosseau/fedora/SRPMS/liburcu-0.6.5-1.fc15.src.rpm The exits call are still present, but they should be fixed in the next upstream release. I've decided to put back the sed to fix the rpath as they seems less risky. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 717337] Review Request: URCU - Userspace RCU Implementation
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=717337
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com 2011-09-19 05:42:32 EDT
---
liburcu.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/liburcu-qsbr.so.1.0.0
exit@GLIBC_2.2.5
and several more. Please find out why/when it calls exit and whether you can
get rid of this.
Looks like it's called if pthread_mutex_{lock,unlock} fails, which shouldn't
happen. Not nice, though.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 717337] Review Request: URCU - Userspace RCU Implementation
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=717337 --- Comment #9 from Yannick Brosseau yannick.bross...@gmail.com 2011-09-19 16:06:53 EDT --- (In reply to comment #7) Several of the findings in comment 2 have not been added to the spec file and have not been commented on either. Please respond to reviewers' comments even if you disagree with them. Sorry, it seems I've missed them. Will address those and your new comments with a new package soon. liburcu.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/liburcu-qsbr.so.1.0.0 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 and several more. Please find out why/when it calls exit and whether you can get rid of this. These have been reported upstream and is being worked on. liburcu-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/userspace-rcu-0.6.3/urcu/list.h Please try to get this fixed in the upstream tarball. 0.6.4 is available, btw. These have been reported and fixed upstream. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 717337] Review Request: URCU - Userspace RCU Implementation
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=717337
Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mschwe...@gmail.com
--- Comment #7 from Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com 2011-09-18 08:00:59
EDT ---
Several of the findings in comment 2 have not been added to the spec file and
have not been commented on either. Please respond to reviewers' comments even
if you disagree with them.
License:LGPL v2 or later
The correct license identifier really is LGPLv2+ as pointed out in comment 2.
The related guidelines are these:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Valid_License_Short_Names
Writing this comment I noticed the linked spec file is out-of-date and doesn't
match the latest src.rpm. Hmmm... continueing with the src.rpm then:
License:LGPLv2
So, same comment as above applies. ;)
Name: liburcu
Group: Development/Libraries
Dunno whether or when RPM will get rid of these Group tags (if at all), but
library base packages typically belong into
Group: System Environment/Libraries
%description
Userspace RCU (Read-Copy-Update) Implementation from the LTTng project.
Very brief and reads more like a summary. The top lines at
http://lttng.org/urcu/ contain a somewhat more detailed description that could
be copied and modified slightly to build a more detailed description:
| This package contains liburcu, a userspace RCU (read-copy-update)
| library. This data synchronization library provides read-side access
| which scales linearly with the number of cores. It does so by allowing
| multiples copies of a given data structure to live at the same time,
| and by monitoring the data structure accesses to detect grace periods
| after which memory reclamation is possible.
What do you think?
ExclusiveArch: %ix86 x86_64 ppc ppc64 s390 s390x
Based on
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures#ExcludeArch_.26_ExclusiveArch
I recommend dropping this, especially since no spec file comment gives a strong
rationale.
%package -n liburcu-devel
Requires: liburcu = %{version}-%{release}
Be aware of %{?_isa} having entered the guidelines as a MUST item:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package
autoreconf -fvi
No strong feelings here. Just know that depending on what versions of the GNU
Autotools may be required by the liburcu build files, a full autoreconf may
cause broken builds. Sometimes without terminating the RPM package build job.
make %{?_smp_mflags}
For more verbose build.log output, this one works:
V=1 make %{?_smp_mflags}
%files -n liburcu-devel
%{_prefix}/include/*
Note that %{_includedir} exists, too, and is the one set by the %configure
macro.
As convenient as wildcards may be, with some packages, it can also be
beneficial to be a little bit more specific about what file names to include,
e.g.
%{_includedir}/urcu*
or even
%{_includedir}/urcu/
%{_includedir}/urcu*.h
would implicitly protect against unexpected renames during package version
upgrades. You would learn about substantial changes below %_includedir due to
the build failing. Not mandatory, of course.
%{_libdir}/*.a
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries
# rpmlint *
liburcu.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/liburcu-qsbr.so.1.0.0
exit@GLIBC_2.2.5
and several more. Please find out why/when it calls exit and whether you can
get rid of this.
liburcu-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/userspace-rcu-0.6.3/urcu/list.h
liburcu-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/urcu/rcuhlist.h
liburcu-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/urcu/rculist.h
liburcu-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/urcu/list.h
Please try to get this fixed in the upstream tarball. 0.6.4 is available, btw.
%doc README LICENSE
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 717337] Review Request: URCU - Userspace RCU Implementation
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=717337 --- Comment #6 from Yannick Brosseau yannick.bross...@gmail.com 2011-09-01 15:51:57 EDT --- I've put a new SPEC and SRPM with small fixes Spec URL: http://www.dorsal.polymtl.ca/~ybrosseau/fedora/SPECS/urcu.spec SRPM URL: http://www.dorsal.polymtl.ca/~ybrosseau/fedora/SRPMS/liburcu-0.6.3-2.fc15.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 717337] Review Request: URCU - Userspace RCU Implementation
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=717337 Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pbonz...@redhat.com --- Comment #4 from Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com 2011-07-01 08:21:33 EDT --- An alternative way to fix the rpath problem is to rebuild autoconf-generated files at RPM build time. This has the advantage of incorporating bugfixes to autoconf/automake/libtool automatically. So that would be BuildRequires: pkgconfig, autoconf, automake, libtool ... %build autoreconf -fvi %configure without the sed lines mentioned in the packaging guidelines. I'll let you and other reviewers decide the preferred resolution. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 717337] Review Request: URCU - Userspace RCU Implementation
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=717337 Yannick Brosseau yannick.bross...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||717748 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 717337] Review Request: URCU - Userspace RCU Implementation
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=717337
Veeti Paananen veeti.paana...@rojekti.fi changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||veeti.paana...@rojekti.fi
--- Comment #2 from Veeti Paananen veeti.paana...@rojekti.fi 2011-06-29
15:25:27 EDT ---
Some comments:
1. The spec file should be named after the package (so it should be
liburcu.spec).
2. The License should be LGPLv2+ instead.
3. The Release tag should be in the format 1%{?dist}.
4. The build should be done with make %{?_smp_mflags}.
5. The libraries seem to include rpaths
(http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Beware_of_Rpath).
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 717337] Review Request: URCU - Userspace RCU Implementation
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=717337 --- Comment #3 from Yannick Brosseau yannick.bross...@gmail.com 2011-06-29 16:38:39 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) Some comments: Thank you for the feedbacks, I've posted an update spec and srpm: http://www.dorsal.polymtl.ca/~ybrosseau/fedora/SPECS/liburcu.spec http://www.dorsal.polymtl.ca/~ybrosseau/fedora/SRPMS/liburcu-0.6.3-1.fc15.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 717337] Review Request: URCU - Userspace RCU Implementation
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=717337 --- Comment #1 from Yannick Brosseau greenscient...@gmail.com 2011-06-28 11:33:52 EDT --- This is my first Fedora package, so I'll need a sponsor. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 717337] Review Request: URCU - Userspace RCU Implementation
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=717337 Yannick Brosseau greenscient...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
