[Bug 809614] Review Request: gfal2 - Grid file access library 2.0
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=809614 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|gfal2-2.0.0-0.6.2012041515s |gfal2-2.0.0-0.6.2012041515s |nap.fc17|nap.fc16 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-05-03 03:21:45 EDT --- gfal2-2.0.0-0.6.2012041515snap.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. -- 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 809614] Review Request: gfal2 - Grid file access library 2.0
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=809614 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|gfal2-2.0.0-0.6.2012041515s |gfal2-2.0.0-0.6.2012041515s |nap.fc16|nap.fc15 --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-05-03 03:27:08 EDT --- gfal2-2.0.0-0.6.2012041515snap.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository. -- 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 809614] Review Request: gfal2 - Grid file access library 2.0
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=809614 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|gfal2-2.0.0-0.6.2012041515s |gfal2-2.0.0-0.6.2012041515s |nap.el6 |nap.el5 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-05-02 16:31:46 EDT --- gfal2-2.0.0-0.6.2012041515snap.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. -- 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 809614] Review Request: gfal2 - Grid file access library 2.0
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=809614 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||gfal2-2.0.0-0.6.2012041515s ||nap.el6 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2012-05-02 16:30:56 --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-05-02 16:30:56 EDT --- gfal2-2.0.0-0.6.2012041515snap.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. -- 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 809614] Review Request: gfal2 - Grid file access library 2.0
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=809614 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|gfal2-2.0.0-0.6.2012041515s |gfal2-2.0.0-0.6.2012041515s |nap.el5 |nap.fc17 --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-05-02 16:53:07 EDT --- gfal2-2.0.0-0.6.2012041515snap.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- 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 809614] Review Request: gfal2 - Grid file access library 2.0
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=809614 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-04-16 03:23:15 EDT --- gfal2-2.0.0-0.6.2012041515snap.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gfal2-2.0.0-0.6.2012041515snap.el5 -- 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 809614] Review Request: gfal2 - Grid file access library 2.0
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=809614 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- 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 809614] Review Request: gfal2 - Grid file access library 2.0
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=809614 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-04-16 03:34:45 EDT --- gfal2-2.0.0-0.6.2012041515snap.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gfal2-2.0.0-0.6.2012041515snap.el6 -- 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 809614] Review Request: gfal2 - Grid file access library 2.0
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=809614 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-04-16 03:47:46 EDT --- gfal2-2.0.0-0.6.2012041515snap.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gfal2-2.0.0-0.6.2012041515snap.fc16 -- 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 809614] Review Request: gfal2 - Grid file access library 2.0
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=809614 Ricardo Rocha rocha.po...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rocha.po...@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 809614] Review Request: gfal2 - Grid file access library 2.0
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=809614 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-04-16 03:55:25 EDT --- gfal2-2.0.0-0.6.2012041515snap.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gfal2-2.0.0-0.6.2012041515snap.fc17 -- 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 809614] Review Request: gfal2 - Grid file access library 2.0
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=809614 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-04-16 05:24:51 EDT --- gfal2-2.0.0-0.6.2012041515snap.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gfal2-2.0.0-0.6.2012041515snap.fc15 -- 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 809614] Review Request: gfal2 - Grid file access library 2.0
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=809614 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-04-16 13:56:41 EDT --- gfal2-2.0.0-0.6.2012041515snap.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 testing repository. -- 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 809614] Review Request: gfal2 - Grid file access library 2.0
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=809614 --- Comment #8 from adev ade...@gmail.com 2012-04-15 10:16:46 EDT --- Updated with versionning of the src.rpm / tarball in snapshots : Spec URL: http://firwen.org/home/specs/gfal2.spec SRPM URL: http://firwen.org/home/specs/gfal2-2.0.0-0.6.2012041515snap.el5.centos.src.rpm Thank you, Adrien. -- 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 809614] Review Request: gfal2 - Grid file access library 2.0
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=809614 Ricardo Rocha rocha.po...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #9 from Ricardo Rocha rocha.po...@gmail.com 2012-04-15 17:46:33 EDT --- Looks better now. One very last thing i noticed is a gfal_2_0_dev dir inside the tarball that looks pointless, you might want to report it. APPROVED. -- 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 809614] Review Request: gfal2 - Grid file access library 2.0
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=809614 --- Comment #10 from adev ade...@gmail.com 2012-04-15 17:50:10 EDT --- Thank you :) -- 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 809614] Review Request: gfal2 - Grid file access library 2.0
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=809614 --- Comment #11 from adev ade...@gmail.com 2012-04-15 17:54:20 EDT --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: gfal2 Short Description: Grid file access library 2.0 Owners: adev Branches: f15 f16 f17 el6 el5 InitialCC: -- 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 809614] Review Request: gfal2 - Grid file access library 2.0
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=809614 adev ade...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- 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 809614] Review Request: gfal2 - Grid file access library 2.0
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=809614 --- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-04-15 20:43:36 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). Ricardo, please take ownership of review BZs, thanks! -- 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 809614] Review Request: gfal2 - Grid file access library 2.0
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=809614
--- Comment #6 from Ricardo Rocha rocha.po...@gmail.com 2012-04-14 12:42:06
EDT ---
Hi.
(In reply to comment #5)
Thank you a lot Ricardo for this review,
I have updated the sources from your comments.
Spec URL: http://firwen.org/home/specs/gfal2.spec
SRPM URL: http://firwen.org/home/specs/gfal2-2.0.0-0.6.beta.el5.centos.src.rpm
W: spelling-error
- all corrected, descriptions have been updated for more explicit ones.
gfal2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gfal2_version
- done
A patch would have been fine too. I see you updated the tarball without
changing the version - probably not a good idea to do it again i guess,
otherwise you'll get inconsistencies between what is pointed by the spec and
what's in the srpm.
If you're building the tar upstream from an evolving branch, consider adding a
date, as in:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Using_Revision_Control
I think it would be cleaner, it will help you debug later.
gfal2-core.x86_64: W: executable-stack /usr/lib64/libgfal2.so.2.0.0
GFAL 2.0 uses a lot the GCC C nested functions in the current state, the
nested
functions usage needs an executable-stack. This cannot be avoided.
Ok, i'll let you decide if you want to add a bug upstream to fix it later.
MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
Sorry for pointing this again, but i find it confusing to have a new package
due to a backwards incompatible change.
Proceed to a so bump will break existing working packages that relies on gfal
(
1.0 ) functionalities that has been suppressed on gfal 2.0. this will probably
cause more troubles than benefits.
Concerning the versioning the old gfal, several externals meta-packages ( EMI
project, glite-projects ) depends directly on the gfal package names in
differents project, and I wish to not not break this.
Indeed, several populars packages like glib - glib2, gtk - gtk2, sqlite -
sqlite2, glade - glade2, ... etc.. proceed in the same way than gfal -
gfal2.
I think that the changes between gfal 1.0 and gfal 2.0 are too big to be
considered like a simple update, or a transparent name swap.
Ok.
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
- corrected too.
You seem to have added for all but gfal2 and gfal2-transfer. Maybe add it there
too?
Let me know what you think, this should be pretty much done.
Regards,
Ricardo
Thank you again.
--
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 809614] Review Request: gfal2 - Grid file access library 2.0
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=809614 --- Comment #7 from adev ade...@gmail.com 2012-04-14 13:15:50 EDT --- Updated from the comments : Spec URL: http://firwen.org/home/specs/gfal2.spec SRPM URL: http://firwen.org/home/specs/gfal2-2.0.0-0.6.beta.el5.centos.src.rpm If you're building the tar upstream from an evolving branch, consider adding a date, as in: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Using_Revision_Control I think it would be cleaner, it will help you debug later. Thank you for the advice :) I will act like this in my next reviews. You seem to have added for all but gfal2 and gfal2-transfer. Maybe add it there too? Corrected . Regards, Adrien -- 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 809614] Review Request: gfal2 - Grid file access library 2.0
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=809614 Ricardo Rocha rocha.po...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added 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 809614] Review Request: gfal2 - Grid file access library 2.0
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=809614
--- Comment #4 from Ricardo Rocha rocha.po...@gmail.com 2012-04-13 14:35:45
EDT ---
Ok here goes a first round.
[-] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package.
rpmlint is not silent (on the rpm packages):
gfal2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wlcg - cowl
gfal2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wlcg - cowl
gfal2-all.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) gfal - gal, goal, fall
gfal2-all.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gfal - gal, goal,
fall
gfal2-doc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Doxygen - Oxygen, D
oxygen
gfal2-plugin-dcap.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gsidcap -
sidecar
gfal2-plugin-dcap.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dCache - d
Cache, cache, cached
gfal2-plugin-gridftp.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gsiftp -
sift
gfal2-plugin-lfc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lfn - NFL
gfal2-plugin-rfio.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dpm - pm,
dim, dam
gfal2-transfer.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gfal - gal,
goal, fall
These should all be due to the usage of lowercase.
gfal2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gfal2_version
Any chance of adding it? I know it's probably not meaningful, but it would go
away :-)
gfal2-core.x86_64: W: executable-stack /usr/lib64/libgfal2.so.2.0.0
# rpmlint -I executable-stack
executable-stack:
The binary declares the stack as executable. Executable stack is usually an
error as it is only needed if the code contains GCC trampolines or similar
constructs which uses code on the stack. One common source for needlessly
executable stack cases are object files built from assembler files which don't
define a proper .note.GNU-stack section.
Please check.
13 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 13 warnings.
[=] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
Sorry for pointing this again, but i find it confusing to have a new package
due to a backwards incompatible change.
1) Could the library simple have a soversion major bump instead of a rename?
2) If it's a new version with big changes, then could you consider this:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Multiple_packages_with_the_same_base_name
it suggests versioning the old one and shipping the new one with the actual
name?
It looks like the rename comes from upstream anyway so it should probably go
like this, just pointing this out.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+] MUST: 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 must be included in %doc.
[=] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
Very minor things, but please check:
line 42: 'it' instead of 'It'
line 43: 'system' instead of 'systems'
line 60: 'file' instead of 'files'
line 127: 'allows' instead of 'allow'
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL.
# md5sum gfal2-2.0.0.tar.gz gfal2-2.0.0.tar.gz.srpm
3be87c77dbaf99078552bfa96cbb97db gfal2-2.0.0.tar.gz
3be87c77dbaf99078552bfa96cbb97db gfal2-2.0.0.tar.gz.srpm
[+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one supported architecture.
Koji builds successful.
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3989055 (el5)
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3989059 (el6)
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3989050 (f16)
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3989064 (rawhide)
[+] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
Builds fine with mock and koji.
[+] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro.
[+] MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just
symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in
%post and %postun.
[+] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory.
[+] MUST: A package must not contain any
[Bug 809614] Review Request: gfal2 - Grid file access library 2.0
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=809614 Ricardo Rocha rocha.po...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- 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 809614] Review Request: gfal2 - Grid file access library 2.0
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=809614
--- Comment #5 from adev ade...@gmail.com 2012-04-13 18:40:08 EDT ---
Thank you a lot Ricardo for this review,
I have updated the sources from your comments.
Spec URL: http://firwen.org/home/specs/gfal2.spec
SRPM URL: http://firwen.org/home/specs/gfal2-2.0.0-0.6.beta.el5.centos.src.rpm
W: spelling-error
- all corrected, descriptions have been updated for more explicit ones.
gfal2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gfal2_version
- done
gfal2-core.x86_64: W: executable-stack /usr/lib64/libgfal2.so.2.0.0
GFAL 2.0 uses a lot the GCC C nested functions in the current state, the nested
functions usage needs an executable-stack. This cannot be avoided.
MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
Sorry for pointing this again, but i find it confusing to have a new package
due to a backwards incompatible change.
Proceed to a so bump will break existing working packages that relies on gfal (
1.0 ) functionalities that has been suppressed on gfal 2.0. this will probably
cause more troubles than benefits.
Concerning the versioning the old gfal, several externals meta-packages ( EMI
project, glite-projects ) depends directly on the gfal package names in
differents project, and I wish to not not break this.
Indeed, several populars packages like glib - glib2, gtk - gtk2, sqlite -
sqlite2, glade - glade2, ... etc.. proceed in the same way than gfal - gfal2.
I think that the changes between gfal 1.0 and gfal 2.0 are too big to be
considered like a simple update, or a transparent name swap.
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
- corrected too.
Thank you again.
--
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 809614] Review Request: gfal2 - Grid file access library 2.0
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=809614 --- Comment #3 from adev ade...@gmail.com 2012-04-06 06:43:08 EDT --- Update in order to correct a compilation problem with the rawhide : Spec URL: http://firwen.org/home/specs/gfal2.spec SRPM URL: http://firwen.org/home/specs/gfal2-2.0.0-0.6.beta.el5.centos.src.rpm I add the rpmlint content too : rpmlint output : gfal2-core.x86_64: W: executable-stack /usr/lib64/libgfal2.so.2.0.0 - needed by the some parts with nested functions. gfal2-plugin-rfio.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency dpm-libs - libdpm is loaded dynamically by design, the explicit dependencie is required. 13 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. -- 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 809614] Review Request: gfal2 - Grid file access library 2.0
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=809614 Ricardo Rocha rocha.po...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rocha.po...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Ricardo Rocha rocha.po...@gmail.com 2012-04-04 12:05:08 EDT --- Hi. I'm happy to take this up, but can you provide some details on why this is not going as an update to the 'gfal' package, which is already in Fedora? After a quick look, the spec seems to take the code from a 'main' branch, wouldn't it be better to build from a tag instead? The version number also looks special. Regards, Ricardo -- 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 809614] Review Request: gfal2 - Grid file access library 2.0
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=809614 --- Comment #2 from adev ade...@gmail.com 2012-04-04 12:31:04 EDT --- I'm happy to take this up, but can you provide some details on why this is not going as an update to the 'gfal' package, which is already in Fedora? gfal 2.0 breaks API compatibility of gfal 1.0, it's a new library written from scratch. The both can coexist and will have to coexist in order to make the migration easy. After a quick look, the spec seems to take the code from a 'main' branch, wouldn't it be better to build from a tag instead After a quick look, the spec seems to take the code from a 'main' branch, wouldn't it be better to build from a tag instead. The source comes from the Source0 field, that is a tarball tagged. The commented link present of the spec is purely indicative and provides a direct link to the upstream of the component. This format follow the same pattern than in the other already approved lcg-utils components : https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790347 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=768174 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=768183 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=768310 The version number also looks special. gfal 2.0 is still in pre-release and normally follows packaging name rules for pre-releases : http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages -- 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
