Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: Pacemaker - cman/rgmanager replacement https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511246 Summary: Review Request: Pacemaker - cman/rgmanager replacement Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ReportedBy: andrew@xxxxxxxxxxx QAContact: extras-qa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx CC: notting@xxxxxxxxxx, fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://oss.clusterlabs.org/~beekhof/fedora/pacemaker.spec SRPM URL: http://oss.clusterlabs.org/~beekhof/fedora/pacemaker-1.0.4-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: Advanced High Availability cluster manager. Pacemaker is an advanced, scalable High-Availability cluster resource manager for Linux-HA (Heartbeat) and/or OpenAIS. It supports "n-node" clusters with significant capabilities for managing resources and dependencies. It will run scripts at initialization, when machines go up or down, when related resources fail and can be configured to periodically check resource health. Background: I've recently been hired by RedHat in order to work on Pacemaker. We'd like to include it in F12 so that we can offer it as a tech preview in RHEL6. This package requires cluster-glue and the current version of corosync from the upstream SVN in order to build. Please note, along with cluster-glue, this is my first package so I am looking for a sponsor. I. rpmlint output: [beekhof@f11 pacemaker]$ rpmlint x86_64/* pacemaker.spec pacemaker-1.0.4-1.fc11.src.rpm libpacemaker3.x86_64: W: no-documentation libpacemaker3.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libcib.so.1.0.1 exit@xxxxxxxxxxx libpacemaker3.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libcrmcluster.so.1.0.0 exit@xxxxxxxxxxx libpacemaker3.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libpengine.so.3.0.0 exit@xxxxxxxxxxx libpacemaker-devel.x86_64: W: no-dependency-on libpacemaker/libpacemaker-libs/liblibpacemaker libpacemaker-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation pacemaker.spec:191: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/ocf pacemaker.spec:192: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/ocf/resource.d pacemaker.spec:193: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/ocf/resource.d/pacemaker pacemaker.src:191: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/ocf pacemaker.src:192: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/ocf/resource.d pacemaker.src:193: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/ocf/resource.d/pacemaker pacemaker.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/heartbeat/crm 0750 pacemaker.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/pengine 0750 pacemaker.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/run/crm 0750 pacemaker.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/pacemaker/constraints-1.0.rng pacemaker.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/pacemaker/crm.dtd pacemaker.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/pacemaker/crm-transitional.dtd pacemaker.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/pacemaker/nvset-1.0.rng pacemaker.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/pacemaker/pacemaker-1.0.rng pacemaker.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/pacemaker/pacemaker.rng pacemaker.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/pacemaker/resources-1.0.rng pacemaker.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/pacemaker/rule-1.0.rng pacemaker.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/pacemaker/score.rng pacemaker.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/pacemaker/upgrade06.xsl pacemaker.x86_64: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/pacemaker/cts/CTSlab.py "env" pacemaker.x86_64: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/pacemaker/cts/extracttests.py "env" pacemaker.x86_64: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/pacemaker/cts/OCFIPraTest.py "env" 5 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 22 errors, 6 warnings. II. Errors a. There are many script-without-shebang errors which appears to be an rpmlint bug. These files are XML related, not scripts, and should not include a shebang. b. There are three instances of wrong-script-interpreter, which I also believe to be an rpmlint problem. The use of 'env' redirection allows us to execute with the version of python preferred by the user. c. The instances of non-standard-dir-perm would also appear to be incorrect, it is not intended that users other than daemon should be allowed to write to these locations. d. The most controversial errors are probably the hardcoded-library-path ones, which I also believe to be a bug in rpmlint. Rpmlint expects %{_libdir}, which is generally the right thing to do. However, the OCF RA API specifies the use of /usr/lib/ocf: http://www.opencf.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/specs/ra/resource-agent-api.txt?rev=1.10&content-type=text/vnd.viewcvs-markup Despite being unconventional from a Fedora perspective, this is not a violation of the LSB nor the FHS: http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#USRLIBLIBRARIESFORPROGRAMMINGANDPA There is nothing which states that packages on x86_64 must use /usr/lib64 and so forth, and using %{_libdir} in this case would violate OCF standards. This could, in turn, break third-party OCF resource agents installed in /usr/lib/ocf as per the OCF standard. III. Warnings a. I believe the no-documentation warnings should be ignored as the documentation is included in the main package. b. The no-dependency-on appears to be an rpmlint bug as the subpackage is libpacemaker3 and the -devel package does indeed have a dependancy on it. c. The shared-lib-calls-exit are legitimate. They result from the way the library handles OOM conditions. The library was initially a private one and as such took the easy way out by calling exit(). If this is a particularly offensive warning, I can investigate options for conditionally disabling it. -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review