https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1485458 Bug ID: 1485458 Summary: Review Request: orangefs - parallel network file system (formerly PVFS2) Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Reporter: martin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx QA Contact: extras-qa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx CC: package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Spec URL: http://dev.orangefs.org/2017/orangefs.spec SRPM URL: http://dev.orangefs.org/2017/orangefs-2.9.7-1.fc28.src.rpm Description: OrangeFS (formerly PVFS2) is a high-performance parallel network file system. Fedora Account System Username: martinbrandenburg OrangeFS is a parallel distributed network file system. It is composed of a number of file system servers which are accessed over the network by a client which may be in userspace or through the kernel. Until recently we have distributed a out-of-tree kernel module. Due to the many problems inherent in that approach, we have worked to get included in the upstream. Our kernel code is now part of the kernel.org distribution and therefore part of Fedora. It does not work on its own. A userspace client must be run to bridge our userspace library and the kernel. This package includes the userspace client, the server, and the development libraries necessary to build other clients which do not rely on the kernel module. This is my first package. I represent the upstream developers. I have fixed many problems since our last release 2.9.6 while making this package. We intend to fix any further problems uncovered by this review and make a new release 2.9.7 if this package is accepted. As such, my RPM currently builds our SVN trunk. I have several questions which have arison from my reading of the wiki and fedora-review's output. The OrangeFS server and client (which is all I have packaged) are intended to be LGPL v2.1 or later. There are a few files which are under various open licenses: *No copyright* LGPL (v2) ------------------------ orangefs-2.9.7/src/apps/admin/pvfs2-config.in BSD (2 clause) -------------- orangefs-2.9.7/maint/config/ssl.m4 BSD (3 clause) -------------- orangefs-2.9.7/src/client/usrint/fts.c orangefs-2.9.7/src/client/usrint/fts.h ISC --- orangefs-2.9.7/src/common/lmdb/mdb.c LGPL (v2.1) ----------- orangefs-2.9.7/src/common/dotconf/dotconf.c NTP --- orangefs-2.9.7/maint/config/install-sh zlib/libpng ----------- orangefs-2.9.7/src/common/misc/md5.c orangefs-2.9.7/src/common/misc/md5.h Then there is code under other licenses in our source tree but which are not built by this package. The kernel module is GPL v2. Parts of our Hadoop integration are Apache v2.0. Parts of the webpack (a set of Apache modules) is GPL v3. None of this is built. I am not sure how to handle this. I assume that the BSD/MIT style licenses will not pose a problem, but I don't know where to document it. OrangeFS includes a copy of LMDB. It does not link against any external package. Does this need to be changed in upstream? OrangeFS requires some configuration to start and creates some files at runtime. A simple configuration file that configures a one-machine file system still requires the local hostname. We generally use a tool to generate configuration files. Then the storage database must be initialized. I have a commented postinstall script. How do I handle this? The storage database is currently /usr/storage (i.e. $PREFIX/storage). Obviously this is not right. I suppose it should go in /var somewhere. Where should it go? I also don't know how to mark this directory as owned by the package. Should it be deleted on package uninstall since it contains user data? The storage database contains a number called the FSID (file system identifier). It is generally different for each installation (calculated randomly), so distributing one base storage directory would be impractical. I have written a systemd file for the server. I'm not really sure how to make it not run if the file system has not yet been initialized. The utility programs distributed and others which can be linked against our libraries will run against the server. It is also possible to use a userspace client program along with the kernel module (distributed by kernel.org and already present in Fedora). This would require running the client program and mounting the filesystem through the kernel. I suppose systemd scripts are needed, but I'm not sure what to distribute. The server logs to /var/log/orangefs-server.log and the client logs to /tmp/pvfs2-client.log. Obviously /tmp/pvfs2-client.log should be moved to /var/log. The packaging system does not know about either file yet. We have a component called the usrint which is a libc interposer. Several of our utility programs require it now. It does not build on all platforms. It is not required to run either the server or the client. I have disabled it completely. I am looking for advice on the remaining problems. It does build in koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=21425692 Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. The OrangeFS source comes with a kernel module. This package does not build it. [?]: Package contains no static executables. I'm pretty sure the answer is no. [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: [?]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [!]: 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. [?]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Apache (v2.0)", "LGPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GPL", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "NTP", "ISC", "zlib/libpng", "BSD (3 clause)", "*No copyright* LGPL (v2)", "LGPL (v2.1)", "*No copyright* Apache (v2)", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "BSD (2 clause)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later)", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 1723 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/packaging-work/orangefs/review- orangefs/licensecheck.txt [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. See above about license. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/systemd/system, /usr/lib/systemd Package needs data directories. I'm not sure how to handle this. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. OrangeFS bundles LMDB. [!]: 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. [?]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. Again, data directories. [-]: 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. I'd like someone to review my systemd file. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines Well, as far as I know, but I don't know very much. [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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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]: 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]: 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: orangefs-devel. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. I've started working on this. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in orangefs-debuginfo , orangefs-devel , orangefs-server [x]: Package functions as described. [-]: Latest version is packaged. As I said, this is the SVN trunk, so that we have an opportunity to fix any problems. We intend to make a release which will be the first version packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [?]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. See what I have commented out in %post. To run the server, the data directory must be initialized. This also depends on the local configuration. I'm not really sure what the best way to handle this is. [!]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. I can write some German badly, but I can't write anything else. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: 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]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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. I intend to deal with the manpage issues, but I'm at the point now where I'm looking for advice on most of it. The macro-in-comment lines will go away when those lines are deleted from the spec. Rpmlint ------- Checking: orangefs-2.9.7-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm orangefs-debuginfo-2.9.7-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm orangefs-devel-2.9.7-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm orangefs-server-2.9.7-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm orangefs-2.9.7-1.fc26.src.rpm orangefs.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog orangefs.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/libpvfs2.so.2.9.6 orangefs.x86_64: E: no-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib64/libpvfs2.so.2.9.6 orangefs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libpvfs2.so.2.9.6 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 orangefs.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/pvfs2-drop-caches.1.gz 13: warning: numeric expression expected (got `f') orangefs.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/pvfs2-fs-dump.1.gz 15: warning: numeric expression expected (got `m') orangefs-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog orangefs-devel.x86_64: W: no-dependency-on orangefs/orangefs-libs/liborangefs orangefs-devel.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog orangefs-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation orangefs-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pvfs2-config orangefs-server.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog orangefs-server.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pvfs2-start-all orangefs-server.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pvfs2-stop-all orangefs.src: W: no-version-in-last-changelog orangefs.src:12: W: unversioned-explicit-provides libofs.so()(64bit) orangefs.src:12: W: unversioned-explicit-provides liborangefs.so()(64bit) orangefs.src:12: W: unversioned-explicit-provides libpvfs2.so()(64bit) orangefs.src:19: W: macro-in-comment %{version} orangefs.src:41: W: macro-in-comment %{_bindir} orangefs.src:42: W: macro-in-comment %{_bindir} orangefs.src:43: W: macro-in-comment %{_bindir} orangefs.src:44: W: macro-in-comment %{_bindir} orangefs.src:45: W: macro-in-comment %{_bindir} orangefs.src:64: W: macro-in-comment %{_bindir} orangefs.src:80: W: macro-in-comment %{_bindir} orangefs.src:83: W: macro-in-comment %{_libdir} orangefs.src:84: W: macro-in-comment %{_libdir} orangefs.src:85: W: macro-in-comment %{_libdir} orangefs.src:86: W: macro-in-comment %{_libdir} orangefs.src:87: W: macro-in-comment %{_libdir} orangefs.src:88: W: macro-in-comment %{_libdir} orangefs.src:164: W: macro-in-comment %{_libdir} orangefs.src:165: W: macro-in-comment %{_libdir} orangefs.src:166: W: macro-in-comment %{_libdir} orangefs.src:167: W: macro-in-comment %{_libdir} orangefs.src:168: W: macro-in-comment %{_libdir} orangefs.src:169: W: macro-in-comment %{_libdir} orangefs.src:197: W: macro-in-comment %config orangefs.src: W: invalid-url Source0: orangefs-2.9.7.tar.gz 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 39 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: orangefs-debuginfo-2.9.7-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm orangefs-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory orangefs-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog orangefs-devel.x86_64: W: no-dependency-on orangefs/orangefs-libs/liborangefs orangefs-devel.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog orangefs-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation orangefs-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pvfs2-config orangefs-server.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog orangefs-server.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pvfs2-start-all orangefs-server.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pvfs2-stop-all orangefs.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog orangefs.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/libpvfs2.so.2.9.6 orangefs.x86_64: E: no-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib64/libpvfs2.so.2.9.6 orangefs.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libpvfs2.so.2.9.6 /lib64/libssl.so.1.1 orangefs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libpvfs2.so.2.9.6 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 orangefs.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/pvfs2-drop-caches.1.gz 13: warning: numeric expression expected (got `f') orangefs.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/pvfs2-fs-dump.1.gz 15: warning: numeric expression expected (got `m') 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 14 warnings. Requires -------- orangefs-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): orangefs-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh libpvfs2.so()(64bit) orangefs-server (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/bash /bin/sh /usr/bin/perl libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.1.1()(64bit) libcrypto.so.1.1(OPENSSL_1_1_0)(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libssl.so.1.1()(64bit) perl(Math::BigInt) rtld(GNU_HASH) orangefs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/csh /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.1.1()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpvfs2.so()(64bit) libssl.so.1.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- orangefs-debuginfo: orangefs-debuginfo orangefs-debuginfo(x86-64) orangefs-devel: orangefs-devel orangefs-devel(x86-64) orangefs-static orangefs-server: orangefs-server orangefs-server(x86-64) orangefs: libofs.so()(64bit) liborangefs.so()(64bit) libpvfs2.so()(64bit) orangefs orangefs(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- Using local file /home/fedora/packaging-work/orangefs/orangefs-2.9.7.tar.gz as upstream file:///home/fedora/packaging-work/orangefs/orangefs-2.9.7.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5a7134dd912886c8757f14a78222ee632da0c25f9a4575b5171ed7f5e5ad5a88 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5a7134dd912886c8757f14a78222ee632da0c25f9a4575b5171ed7f5e5ad5a88 Using local file /home/fedora/packaging-work/orangefs/orangefs.service as upstream file:///home/fedora/packaging-work/orangefs/orangefs.service : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d05a7b9045b7e2ea7788f567ec66076f66dd7d5a1804a0895cf3206b39988abc CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d05a7b9045b7e2ea7788f567ec66076f66dd7d5a1804a0895cf3206b39988abc Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n orangefs Buildroot used: fedora-26-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 _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
