https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1397643 Michal Schmidt <mschmidt(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |mschmidt(a)redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Michal Schmidt <mschmidt(a)redhat.com&gt; --- I suggest to drop all the Obsoletes lines: Obsoletes: udapl < 1.3 Obsoletes: udapl-devel < 1.3 Obsoletes: dapl-devel-static < 2.0.24 They are pointless in Fedora where the obsoleted packages were never included. And even if we later inherit this dapl.spec into RHEL, we do not need these Obsoletes anymore, because RHEL 6.0 already had a new enough version of dapl, i.e. dapl-2.0.25. No need to try to support upgrades from earlier versions. Before the ExcludeArch line: ExcludeArch: s390, armv7hl maybe add a comment: # Platforms missing in dapl/udapl/linux/dapl_osd.h Instead of using chrpath, which the Fedora packaging guidelines describe as "a last resort", please switch to the recommended way of removing rpath (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Removing_Rpath) - do this after %configure: sed -i 's|^hardcode_libdir_flag_spec=.*|hardcode_libdir_flag_spec=""|g' libtool sed -i 's|^runpath_var=LD_RUN_PATH|runpath_var=DIE_RPATH_DIE|g' libtool Add BuildRequires for the C compiler. (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B#BuildRequires_and_R...) -- 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=1397643 --- Comment #3 from Michal Schmidt <mschmidt(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/rdma This would result in having the config file /etc/dat.conf. It's the upstream default and it's where the config file is in Debian (libdapl2) and openSUSE (dapl). It's a change from RHEL, but we can deal with it there. configure. not clear why. Other distros do not add the option. The build with -Wall -O2 (which together imply -Wstrict-aliasing) does not trigger any aliasing warnings. occurrence of lower-case "rdma". In "libdat and libdapl provides" use singular form "provide". In %description of utils use plural "APIs", not possessive "API's". ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v2 or later)", "FSF Unlimited", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "FSF Unlimited GPL (v2 or later)", "BSD (3 clause)", "FSF All Permissive". 308 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/tmp/1397643-dapl/licensecheck.txt to distribute under the terms of the program itself it is bundled with. OK. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [-]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/rdma [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 440320 bytes in 4 files. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: 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 is included in %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: No %config files under /usr. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if present. Note: Package has .a files: dapl-static. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in dapl- static , dapl-debuginfo [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [-]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: dapl-2.1.9-2.fc24.x86_64.rpm dapl-devel-2.1.9-2.fc24.x86_64.rpm dapl-static-2.1.9-2.fc24.x86_64.rpm dapl-utils-2.1.9-2.fc24.x86_64.rpm dapl-debuginfo-2.1.9-2.fc24.x86_64.rpm dapl-2.1.9-2.fc24.src.rpm dapl.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libdat -> libation dapl.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US userspace -> user space, user-space, users pace dapl.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libdaploscm.so.2.0.0 exit(a)GLIBC_2.2.5 dapl.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libdaploucm.so.2.0.0 exit(a)GLIBC_2.2.5 dapl.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libdaplofa.so.2.0.0 exit(a)GLIBC_2.2.5 It's something we can deal with upstream, not to be resolved in package review. dapl.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man5/dat.conf.5.gz 28: normal or special character expected (got a space) dapl.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man5/dat.conf.5.gz 49: normal or special character expected (got a space) dapl.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man5/dat.conf.5.gz 71: normal or special character expected (got a space) dapl.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/dapl/LICENSE3.txt dapl-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libdat -> libation dapl-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libdapl -> libidinal dapl-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libdat -> libation dapl-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libdapl -> libidinal dapl-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib dapl-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation dapl-static.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libdat -> libation dapl-static.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libdapl -> libidinal dapl-static.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libdat -> libation dapl-static.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libdapl -> libidinal dapl-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation dapl-utils.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/dapltest.1.gz 1: warning: macro `"' not defined dapl-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dtestcm dapl-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dtestx dapl-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dtestsrq dapl.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libdat -> libation dapl.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US userspace -> user space, user-space, users pace dapl.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rdma -> dram, rd ma, rd-ma 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 26 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: dapl-debuginfo-2.1.9-2.fc24.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory dapl-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libdat -> libation dapl-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libdapl -> libidinal dapl-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libdat -> libation dapl-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libdapl -> libidinal dapl-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib dapl-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation dapl-static.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libdat -> libation dapl-static.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libdapl -> libidinal dapl-static.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libdat -> libation dapl-static.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libdapl -> libidinal dapl-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation dapl.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libdat -> libation dapl.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US userspace -> user space, user-space, users pace dapl.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libdaploscm.so.2.0.0 dats_get_ia_handle dapl.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libdaploscm.so.2.0.0 dat_registry_add_provider dapl.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libdaploscm.so.2.0.0 dat_registry_remove_provider dapl.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libdaploscm.so.2.0.0 exit(a)GLIBC_2.2.5 dapl.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libdaplofa.so.2.0.0 dats_get_ia_handle dapl.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libdaplofa.so.2.0.0 dat_registry_add_provider dapl.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libdaplofa.so.2.0.0 dat_registry_remove_provider dapl.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libdaplofa.so.2.0.0 exit(a)GLIBC_2.2.5 dapl.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libdaploucm.so.2.0.0 dats_get_ia_handle dapl.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libdaploucm.so.2.0.0 dat_registry_add_provider dapl.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libdaploucm.so.2.0.0 dat_registry_remove_provider dapl.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libdaploucm.so.2.0.0 exit(a)GLIBC_2.2.5 dapl.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man5/dat.conf.5.gz 28: normal or special character expected (got a space) dapl.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man5/dat.conf.5.gz 49: normal or special character expected (got a space) dapl.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man5/dat.conf.5.gz 71: normal or special character expected (got a space) dapl.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/dapl/LICENSE3.txt dapl-utils.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/dapltest.1.gz 1: warning: macro `"' not defined dapl-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dtestsrq dapl-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dtestcm dapl-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dtestx 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 32 warnings. Requires -------- dapl-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): dapl-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): dapl(x86-64) libdaplofa.so.2()(64bit) libdaploscm.so.2()(64bit) libdaploucm.so.2()(64bit) libdat2.so.2()(64bit) dapl-static (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): dapl-devel(x86-64) dapl (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig config(dapl) libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libibverbs.so.1()(64bit) libibverbs.so.1(IBVERBS_1.0)(64bit) libibverbs.so.1(IBVERBS_1.1)(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librdmacm.so.1()(64bit) librdmacm.so.1(RDMACM_1.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) dapl-utils (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): dapl(x86-64) libc.so.6()(64bit) libdat2.so.2()(64bit) libdat2.so.2(DAT_2.0)(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- dapl-debuginfo: dapl-debuginfo dapl-debuginfo(x86-64) dapl-devel: dapl-devel dapl-devel(x86-64) dapl-static: dapl-static dapl-static(x86-64) dapl: config(dapl) dapl dapl(x86-64) libdaplofa.so.2()(64bit) libdaplofa.so.2(DAPL_CMA_2.0)(64bit) libdaploscm.so.2()(64bit) libdaploscm.so.2(DAPL_SCM_2.0)(64bit) libdaploucm.so.2()(64bit) libdaploucm.so.2(DAPL_OCM_2.0)(64bit) libdat2.so.2()(64bit) libdat2.so.2(DAT_2.0)(64bit) dapl-utils: dapl-utils dapl-utils(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://www.openfabrics.org/downloads/dapl/dapl-2.1.9.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 40982b43c5e2f1d5b007add9917bc461fdffb95bd52f589de95b15aa59a9d0b6 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 40982b43c5e2f1d5b007add9917bc461fdffb95bd52f589de95b15aa59a9d0b6 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1397643 Buildroot used: fedora-24-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 -- 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=1397643 Doug Ledford <dledford(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dledford(a)redhat.com --- Comment #5 from Doug Ledford <dledford(a)redhat.com&gt; --- dapl will co-own the /etc/rdma directory. Don't make dapl co-own the directory. Just make dapl Require: the rdma package. It really should do that anyway, and it will pull in the ownership properly. -- 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=1397643 --- Comment #7 from Honggang LI <honli(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Please review updated SPEC and SRPM files: Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/honli/.419dc6a07891d4da7bc03168d5613fcz/dapl.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/honli/.419dc6a07891d4da7bc03168d5613fcz/dapl-2.1... -- 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=1397643 --- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla <limburgher(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/dapl -- 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=1397643 Honggang LI <honli(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed| |2016-12-05 23:02:28 -- 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