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=563318 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|ceph - User space |Review Request: ceph - User |components of the CEPH file |space components of the |system |CEPH file system --- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu&gt; 2010-02-09 15:54:21 EST --- Scripts parse package reviews, so please either use the template for submitting them or try to stick to the usual format. -- 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.

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=563318 Josef Bacik <jbacik(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|163776(FE-NEW) | -- 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.

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=563318 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Dieter <jdieter(a)gmail.com&gt; 2010-04-20 05:39:07 EDT --- Josef, are you still interested in packaging this? -- 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.

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=563318 --- Comment #5 from Josef Bacik <jbacik(a)redhat.com&gt; 2010-04-20 16:44:40 EDT --- Argh I'm having a problem building this atm, rpmbuild keeps driving the box into swap. As soon as I figure out whats going on I'll post the new spec and srpm up here. -- 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.

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=563318 Jonathan Dieter <jdieter(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |jdieter(a)gmail.com --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Dieter <jdieter(a)gmail.com&gt; 2010-04-21 13:21:49 EDT --- I'm sorry about the pain. I've got a crazy week ahead here, but I'll try to get on this over the weekend. -- 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.

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=563318 --- Comment #9 from Jonathan Dieter <jdieter(a)gmail.com&gt; 2010-04-25 14:25:55 EDT --- Key: X - Good - - Not so good N/A - Not applicable [ - ] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package Aside from non-existent spelling mistakes, the only thing that comes up is: ceph.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/librados.so.1.0.0 exit(a)GLIBC_2.2.5 ceph.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/librados.so.1.0.0 _exit(a)GLIBC_2.2.5 ceph.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libceph.so.1.0.0 exit(a)GLIBC_2.2.5 ceph.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libceph.so.1.0.0 _exit(a)GLIBC_2.2.5 If we could try to track this down, it would be nice, as this really isn't recommended. [ X ] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines [ X ] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name} [ X ] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines [ X ] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines LGPLv2 [ X ] 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 I see that you included COPYING only in the -devel package. I think it should be included in *every* package, based on the above text (though it is a bit ambiguous). [ X ] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [ X ] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [ X ] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. sha256sum: 20e311c97e761017cdbbad13ab06bc6694338871832579bd51203173535ed796 [ - ] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture When I try to build this package in Fedora 13 x86_64, I get the following: RPM build errors: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found: /usr/lib64/libhadoopcephfs.so /usr/lib64/libhadoopcephfs.so.1 /usr/lib64/libhadoopcephfs.so.1.0.0 [N/A] 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. [ X ] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires. [N/A] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. [ X ] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [N/A] 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. You create %{_libdir}/ceph, but don't own it. [ X ] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. [ X ] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. [ X ] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [ X ] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [ X ] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [N/A] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. [ X ] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. [ X ] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [N/A] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [N/A] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. [ X ] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. [ X ] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} [ X ] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. [N/A] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file. [ X ] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [ X ] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [ X ] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [ ? ] SHOULD query upstream to include it. [N/A] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [ - ] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. I've been unable to test that it builds in mock, but according to the previous comment, it appears that it doesn't. [ ? ] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ? ] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. I've tested the most of the binaries don't segfault, but not much more. [ X ] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. [ X ] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [N/A] SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. [N/A] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. [ X ] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. Apart from this, the description for the fuse client is a bit too brief -- 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.

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=563318 --- Comment #11 from Fabian Deutsch <fabian.deutsch(a)gmx.de&gt; 2010-04-25 14:37:46 EDT --- Re(In reply to comment #9) I just did a plain rpmrebuild outside of mock. -- 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.

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=563318 Jonathan Dieter <jdieter(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #13 from Jonathan Dieter <jdieter(a)gmail.com&gt; 2010-04-26 09:50:15 EDT --- As I was playing around with this today, I noticed that the man pages for cauthtool and rados are in the ceph-fuse package, while the binaries are in the base package. We probably want to move them to the base package as I'm assuming cauthtool and rados aren't just needed for the fuse client. As for the exit() in shared libraries, your explanation makes sense, so we'll call that good. FWIW, I did build the package on my system with the updated spec and haven't hit any glitches yet (though I haven't set up a ceph cluster yet). I'm going to call this approved, with the proviso that the man pages get moved (or binaries the other way if they are specific to the fuse client). -- 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.

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=563318 Josef Bacik <jbacik(a)redhat.com&gt; 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.

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=563318 --- Comment #16 from Jonathan Dieter <jdieter(a)gmail.com&gt; 2010-04-26 10:31:03 EDT --- No problem. Have you thought about asking the kernel devs to backport the ceph kernel module into 2.6.33? Seeing as it made it into 2.6.34, it should fit Fedora's requirements for adding modules to the kernel. Anyhow, just a thought. -- 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.

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=563318 --- Comment #20 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu&gt; 2010-04-28 22:07:57 EDT --- CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py). -- 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.

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=563318 --- Comment #22 from Josef Bacik <jbacik(a)redhat.com&gt; 2010-05-06 09:11:52 EDT --- Yeah, I've had to fiddle with things to get it working nice for 0.20. I plan to add it to CVS tomorrow (since my fedora box is at home and i'm at work atm). -- 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.

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=563318 Jonathan Dieter <jdieter(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed| |2011-04-25 12:05:17 -- 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.