https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
Michal Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
--- Comment #74 from paul.j.re...@intel.com ---
Package:libpsm2-10.2.1-1.fc25
Status: complete
Built by: pjreger
ID: 760647
Started:Fri, 06 May 2016 19:43:47 UTC
Finished: Fri, 06 May 2016 19:45:49 UTC
Closed tasks:
---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
--- Comment #73 from paul.j.re...@intel.com ---
Since I have successfully imported and built the psm2 library, into master for
fedora, the instructions say I should close this problem report.
Does anyone object?
By the way, I tried to do the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
--- Comment #72 from paul.j.re...@intel.com ---
For everyone's information: early in the work for getting PSM info Fedora, we
had planned on going with Intel's 10.1 release.
Sadly, we did not complete the Fedora work in time, and we missed the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
--- Comment #71 from paul.j.re...@intel.com ---
I have requested a new package to be added called libpsm2.
I was not sure what to put for the upstream url, and I may have put the wrong
thing there.
The real code should come from the 10.2 bran
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
--- Comment #70 from paul.j.re...@intel.com ---
Pushed fix for lack of ownership of /usr/lib/libpsm2 dir and lack of use of
%{_prefix} macro.
Diffs:
[pjreger@Fedora23-dev opa-psm2.test]$ git diff
diff --git a/libpsm2.spec.in b/libpsm2.spec.in
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
--- Comment #69 from Michal Schmidt ---
Paul,
when you file the request for a new package in PkgDB, please list me
('michich') as a co-maintainer. Thanks!
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are al
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
--- Comment #68 from paul.j.re...@intel.com ---
(In reply to Michal Schmidt from comment #67)
> Paul,
> I have sponsored you into the 'packagers' group.
> You should be able to proceed with the SCM admin request step:
> https://fedoraproject.or
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
--- Comment #67 from Michal Schmidt ---
Paul,
I have sponsored you into the 'packagers' group.
You should be able to proceed with the SCM admin request step:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process#Contributor
--
You are receiv
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
Michal Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #66 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
--- Comment #65 from paul.j.re...@intel.com ---
I have just pushed changes to the 10.1 branch of github that eliminate the
40-psm.rules file from the Fedora distribution.
Can you please re-review?
If you pull the branch in a sandbox, and run
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
--- Comment #64 from paul.j.re...@intel.com ---
(In reply to Michal Schmidt from comment #63)
> The goal of this review should be to get libpsm2 into Fedora Rawhide (the
> 'master' branch of Fedora) and Fedora 24 (which is currently in preparat
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
--- Comment #63 from Michal Schmidt ---
The goal of this review should be to get libpsm2 into Fedora Rawhide (the
'master' branch of Fedora) and Fedora 24 (which is currently in preparation for
a Beta release). I wouldn't bother with pushing i
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
--- Comment #62 from paul.j.re...@intel.com ---
> Is 40-psm.rules even needed with the current hfi1 kernel driver?
> The device nodes should already have the expected mode even without this rule
> file. Please remove 40-psm.rules if that's the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
--- Comment #61 from paul.j.re...@intel.com ---
(In reply to Michal Schmidt from comment #55)
I am responding to the collection of problems that you cited. One problem was
not resolved yet. All others are resolved.
Can you please give the c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
--- Comment #60 from Michal Schmidt ---
Paul,
on a Fedora system you can install it simply using:
dnf install fedora-review
Usually it's run like this:
fedora-review -b
... but this does not work for this review, because you haven't been
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
--- Comment #59 from paul.j.re...@intel.com ---
Michal, Thank you for running fedora-review (I think that is what the tool is
called?), and adding the output and analysis/distilation to this problem
report.
Can you also include instructions fo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
--- Comment #58 from Michal Schmidt ---
I see some of the exit() calls are reachable only when "HFI_BACKTRACE" is in
the environment, as a debugging feature. So those are harmless in normal
operation.
I'm not sure under what circumstances the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
--- Comment #57 from paul.j.re...@intel.com ---
Regarding the libpsm2.so calling exit(), would it be ok to change these calls
to _exit()?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified abou
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
--- Comment #56 from Michal Schmidt ---
(In reply to russell.w.mcguire from comment #53)
> I wanted to ask isn't the Source0 tag mostly for user interaction (what
> you're doing now) and documentation purposes? i.e. are there tools that use
>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
--- Comment #55 from Michal Schmidt ---
Reviewing libpsm2-10.1.7-1 (made from commit
faa1ef38a33b4caa64c56040a2447c1ce105b3e4).
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
--- Comment #54 from paul.j.re...@intel.com ---
(In reply to Michal Schmidt from comment #51)
> So after doing "git clean -fdx && ./makesrpm.sh" I got
> libpsm2-10.1.4-1.fc24.src.rpm
>
> Inside it there is libpsm2-10.1.4.tar.gz (that makesrpm.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
--- Comment #53 from russell.w.mcgu...@intel.com ---
Michal,
I wanted to ask isn't the Source0 tag mostly for user interaction (what you're
doing now) and documentation purposes? i.e. are there tools that use this
field?
Paul,
Please go this
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
--- Comment #52 from Michal Schmidt ---
(In reply to Michal Schmidt from comment #51)
># The tarball can be created by:
># git clone https://github.com/01org/opa-psm2
># cd opa-psm
Typo: cd opa-psm2
># git checkout 8f9f240380
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
--- Comment #51 from Michal Schmidt ---
So after doing "git clean -fdx && ./makesrpm.sh" I got
libpsm2-10.1.4-1.fc24.src.rpm
Inside it there is libpsm2-10.1.4.tar.gz (that makesrpm.sh generated using
"make dist") and a spec file libpsm2.spec.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
--- Comment #50 from paul.j.re...@intel.com ---
(In reply to Michal Schmidt from comment #49)
> (In reply to paul.j.reger from comment #48)
> > On a Fedora system:
> > Pull the 10.1 branch from github to a sandbox.
> > cd sandbox
> > ./makesrpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
--- Comment #49 from Michal Schmidt ---
(In reply to paul.j.reger from comment #48)
> On a Fedora system:
> Pull the 10.1 branch from github to a sandbox.
> cd sandbox
> ./makesrpm.sh
> [...]
> The source rpm is in temp.3182/SRPMS/libpsm2-10.1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
--- Comment #48 from paul.j.re...@intel.com ---
I have removed the spec file from the tarball and pushed the changes to the
10.1 branch of github.
NEW PROCEDURE TO TEST:
On a Fedora system:
Pull the 10.1 branch from github to a sandbox.
cd sa
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
--- Comment #47 from Michal Schmidt ---
(In reply to paul.j.reger from comment #46)
> (In reply to Michal Schmidt from comment #45)
> > We don't need "rpmbuild -ta " to work.
>
> Can you please elaborate?
Our build system needs "rpmbuild -bs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
--- Comment #46 from paul.j.re...@intel.com ---
(In reply to Michal Schmidt from comment #45)
> We don't need "rpmbuild -ta " to work.
Can you please elaborate?
Do you would prefer that the spec file is not present in the tar ball?
Is it an
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
--- Comment #45 from Michal Schmidt ---
We don't need "rpmbuild -ta " to work.
--
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
__
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
--- Comment #44 from paul.j.re...@intel.com ---
(In reply to Don Dutile from comment #43)
> (In reply to russell.w.mcguire from comment #42)
> > Question: Does the tarball we generate need to contain any spec file. After
> > all these comments
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
--- Comment #43 from Don Dutile ---
(In reply to russell.w.mcguire from comment #42)
> Question: Does the tarball we generate need to contain any spec file. After
> all these comments above, and viewing a lot of the SRPMs from Fedora21-23
> do
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
--- Comment #42 from russell.w.mcgu...@intel.com ---
Question: Does the tarball we generate need to contain any spec file. After all
these comments above, and viewing a lot of the SRPMs from Fedora21-23 download
sites, I see that most all tar.b
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
--- Comment #41 from paul.j.re...@intel.com ---
Given that this review was going so slowly, we had two meetings this morning
with:
Intel: Ira Weiny, John Fleck, Russ McGuire, and me.
Redhat: Michal Schmidt
In the meeting we clarified what we
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
--- Comment #40 from paul.j.re...@intel.com ---
(In reply to Michal Schmidt from comment #35)
> (In reply to paul.j.reger from comment #32)
> > Created attachment 1149512 [details]
> > Spec file for 10.1.0.
>
> in the spec:
> > # The source to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
paul.j.re...@intel.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment|0 |1
#1149513 is|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
--- Comment #38 from paul.j.re...@intel.com ---
(In reply to Michal Schmidt from comment #34)
> (In reply to paul.j.reger from comment #31)
> > As such, I have changed that version to 10.1.0. But, that version is subject
> > to change
>
> I'm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
--- Comment #37 from Doug Ledford ---
(In reply to Michal Schmidt from comment #34)
> (In reply to paul.j.reger from comment #31)
> > As such, I have changed that version to 10.1.0. But, that version is subject
> > to change
>
> I'm confused
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
--- Comment #36 from paul.j.re...@intel.com ---
Michal, can we please talk on the phone so that we can discuss your needs for
versioning and I can supply you with our plans for the 10.1 release? There
seems to be a communication breakdown on
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
--- Comment #35 from Michal Schmidt ---
(In reply to paul.j.reger from comment #32)
> Created attachment 1149512 [details]
> Spec file for 10.1.0.
in the spec:
> # The source to make this rpm was created at Intel from a private git repo.
> #
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
--- Comment #34 from Michal Schmidt ---
(In reply to paul.j.reger from comment #31)
> As such, I have changed that version to 10.1.0. But, that version is subject
> to change
I'm confused. Do you mean that this is just a pre-release of 10.1.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
--- Comment #33 from paul.j.re...@intel.com ---
Created attachment 1149513
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1149513&action=edit
Tar ball of source for psm library.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC l
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
paul.j.re...@intel.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment|0 |1
#1148717 is|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
--- Comment #31 from paul.j.re...@intel.com ---
I have put %{?dist} into the Release: tag, together with a number of other
fixes. Further, I will reserve the use of the Release tag to distros. I will
place the information I need entirely in t
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
--- Comment #30 from Doug Ledford ---
Yes, the %{?dist} tag must be part of the release. What this highlights is the
fact that the release tag is Fedora, RHEL, and CentOS private. It is for the
distro to track their build of your upstream ve
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
--- Comment #29 from paul.j.re...@intel.com ---
(In reply to Michal Schmidt from comment #28)
> (In reply to paul.j.reger from comment #27)
> > To be clear, 10.1, is actually, currently in a pre-release state.
>
> I see. In that case Release v
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
--- Comment #28 from Michal Schmidt ---
(In reply to paul.j.reger from comment #27)
> To be clear, 10.1, is actually, currently in a pre-release state.
I see. In that case Release value should be something like:
0.1.20160420git.%{?dist}
as i
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
--- Comment #27 from paul.j.re...@intel.com ---
(In reply to Michal Schmidt from comment #26)
> > Release: 0
>
> From what you wrote in comment #19 I can now understand where this "0" comes
> from. However, for Fedora packaging, the initial va
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
--- Comment #26 from Michal Schmidt ---
> Release: 0
From what you wrote in comment #19 I can now understand where this "0" comes
from. However, for Fedora packaging, the initial value for Release should be
"1". A Release tag leading with "0"
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
--- Comment #25 from Michal Schmidt ---
(In reply to paul.j.reger from comment #19)
> Yes, we are trying to use one 'template' spec file to support multiple
> distributions.
It's fine if you want to use that for your (upstream) development an
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
--- Comment #24 from paul.j.re...@intel.com ---
(In reply to paul.j.reger from comment #21)
> I think I have addressed the issues surrounding the Source0 tag. I will
> attach the new spec file template in just a little bit.
>
> My solution wa
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
paul.j.re...@intel.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment|0 |1
#1148280 is|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
paul.j.re...@intel.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment|0 |1
#1147688 is|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
--- Comment #21 from paul.j.re...@intel.com ---
I think I have addressed the issues surrounding the Source0 tag. I will attach
the new spec file template in just a little bit.
My solution was just to use the following comments and leave the S
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
--- Comment #20 from Ira Weiny ---
(In reply to Michal Schmidt from comment #18)
> (In reply to paul.j.reger from comment #15)
> > This is the template for the spec file that we use to generate the
> > hfi1-psm.spec file.
>
> So the resistanc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
--- Comment #19 from paul.j.re...@intel.com ---
(In reply to Michal Schmidt from comment #18)
> (In reply to paul.j.reger from comment #15)
> > This is the template for the spec file that we use to generate the
> > hfi1-psm.spec file.
>
> So t
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
--- Comment #18 from Michal Schmidt ---
(In reply to paul.j.reger from comment #15)
> This is the template for the spec file that we use to generate the
> hfi1-psm.spec file.
So the resistance to changing the spec file stems from the fact tha
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
--- Comment #17 from Michal Schmidt ---
(In reply to paul.j.reger from comment #13)
> > Could you please use a full URL in the Source tag?
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL
>
> I need to know if this _needs_ to be changed?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
--- Comment #16 from paul.j.re...@intel.com ---
(In reply to Michal Schmidt from comment #12)
> Sure, go ahead and post the spec here.
I have posted the template for the spec file to this problem report.
Note that this template for the spec f
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
--- Comment #15 from paul.j.re...@intel.com ---
Created attachment 1147688
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1147688&action=edit
Template for specfile
This is the template for the spec file that we use to generate the
hfi1-ps
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
--- Comment #14 from paul.j.re...@intel.com ---
Another comment, on comment 2:
>> %if 0%{?rhel}%{?rhl}%{?fedora}
>> Requires: libuuid
>> %else
>> Requires: libuuid1
>> %endif
>
> The binary package will automatically get a dependency on
> "lib
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
--- Comment #13 from paul.j.re...@intel.com ---
Regarding comment 2, I received some serious pushback from a member of my team
here at Intel regarding this comment:
> Source0: %{name}-%{version}-%{release}.tar.gz
>
> Could you please use a ful
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
--- Comment #12 from Michal Schmidt ---
Sure, go ahead and post the spec 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
__
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
--- Comment #11 from paul.j.re...@intel.com ---
I have addressed most of the issues in the spec file cited in comment 2. The
changed spec file is in a Gerrit review here at Intel. Would it help if I
posted the changed spec file here so that t
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
--- Comment #10 from Michal Schmidt ---
(In reply to paul.j.reger from comment #9)
> (In reply to Michal Schmidt from comment #2)
> > To facilitate the review process (notably the 'fedora-review' helper tool),
> > the two URLs should point dir
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
--- Comment #9 from paul.j.re...@intel.com ---
(In reply to Michal Schmidt from comment #2)
> (In reply to paul.j.reger from comment #0)
> > Spec URL: https://github.com/01org/opa-psm2/releases/tag/10_1
> > SRPM URL: https://github.com/01org/op
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
--- Comment #8 from Don Dutile ---
(In reply to Ira Weiny from comment #7)
> (In reply to Honggang LI from comment #3)
> > Paul,
> > Please replace the package name hfi-psm1 with libpsm2, as we had imported
> > it into RHEL-7.2 with name 'lib
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
Ira Weiny changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ira.we...@intel.com
--- Comment #7 from I
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
--- Comment #6 from paul.j.re...@intel.com ---
PSM is an acronym for "Performance Scaled Messaging"
--
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 componen
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
--- Comment #5 from Michal Schmidt ---
Created attachment 1145900
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1145900&action=edit
SRPM from RHEL 7.2
For reference, here's the libpsm2 SRPM from RHEL 7.2.
--
You are receiving this mai
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
--- Comment #4 from Michal Schmidt ---
(In reply to Honggang LI from comment #3)
> Please replace the package name hfi-psm1 with libpsm2, as we had imported
> it into RHEL-7.2 with name 'libpsm2'.
True, this would make our life easier. Thou
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
--- Comment #3 from Honggang LI ---
Paul,
Please replace the package name hfi-psm1 with libpsm2, as we had imported it
into RHEL-7.2 with name 'libpsm2'.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173296
It is will be an issue if fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
Michal Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nob...@fed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
Honggang LI changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ddut...@redhat.com,
|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590
--- Comment #1 from paul.j.re...@intel.com ---
My Koji build is:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13576497
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes t
76 matches
Mail list logo
