[Bug 2303666] Review Request: osu-micro-benchmarks - OSU Micro-Benchmarks for MPI

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2303666



--- Comment #3 from José Ignacio Tornos Martínez <jtornosm@xxxxxxxxxx> ---
fedora-review report from local:

This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are
also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla:
- Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such
  a list, create one.
- Add your own remarks to the template checks.
- Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not
  listed by fedora-review.
- Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this
  case you could also file a bug against fedora-review
- Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines
  in what you paste.
- Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint
  ones are mandatory, though)
- Remove this text



Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
     BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-Clause License", "FSF Unlimited
     License (with License Retention) and/or GNU General Public License,
     Version 2 [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later
     [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "FSF
     Unlimited License [generated file]", "X11 License [generated file]",
     "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later". 250 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/jtornosm/2303666-osu-micro-benchmarks/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/.build-id/bb,
     /usr/lib/.build-id/ca, /usr/lib/.build-id/9f, /usr/lib/.build-id/1f,
     /usr/lib/.build-id/00, /usr/lib/.build-id/aa
[ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: 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 114810 bytes in 2 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[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]: 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[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]: 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.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in osu-
     micro-benchmarks-common , osu-micro-benchmarks-openmpi , osu-micro-
     benchmarks-mpich
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[ ]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[ ]: 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]: 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:
[!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
     Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see
     attached diff).
     See: (this test has no URL)
[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.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: osu-micro-benchmarks-common-7.4-1.fc41.noarch.rpm
          osu-micro-benchmarks-openmpi-7.4-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm
          osu-micro-benchmarks-mpich-7.4-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm
          osu-micro-benchmarks-7.4-1.fc41.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts
============================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp5q1qbxwt')]
checks: 32, packages: 4

osu-micro-benchmarks.src: E: spelling-error ('init', '%description -l en_US
init -> unit, int, nit')
osu-micro-benchmarks-mpich.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('init', '%description -l
en_US init -> unit, int, nit')
osu-micro-benchmarks-openmpi.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('init', '%description
-l en_US init -> unit, int, nit')
osu-micro-benchmarks-common.noarch: W: package-with-huge-docs 98%
osu-micro-benchmarks-mpich.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided mpitests-mpich
osu-micro-benchmarks-openmpi.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided mpitests-openmpi
osu-micro-benchmarks-mpich.x86_64: W: no-documentation
osu-micro-benchmarks-openmpi.x86_64: W: no-documentation
osu-micro-benchmarks.spec:48: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 14,
tab: line 48)
osu-micro-benchmarks.spec:82: W: configure-without-libdir-spec
 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 7 warnings, 15 filtered, 3
badness; has taken 2.7 s 




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:



Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Source checksums
----------------
https://mvapich.cse.ohio-state.edu/download/mvapich/osu-micro-benchmarks-7.4.tar.gz
:
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
1edd0c2efa61999409bfb28740a7f39689a5b42b1a1b4c66d1656e5637f7cefc
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
1edd0c2efa61999409bfb28740a7f39689a5b42b1a1b4c66d1656e5637f7cefc


Requires
--------
osu-micro-benchmarks-common (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

osu-micro-benchmarks-openmpi (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libmpi.so.40()(64bit)(openmpi-x86_64)
    openmpi
    osu-micro-benchmarks-common
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

osu-micro-benchmarks-mpich (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libmpi.so.12()(64bit)(mpich-x86_64)
    mpich
    osu-micro-benchmarks-common
    rtld(GNU_HASH)



Provides
--------
osu-micro-benchmarks-common:
    osu-micro-benchmarks-common

osu-micro-benchmarks-openmpi:
    osu-micro-benchmarks-openmpi
    osu-micro-benchmarks-openmpi(x86-64)

osu-micro-benchmarks-mpich:
    osu-micro-benchmarks-mpich
    osu-micro-benchmarks-mpich(x86-64)



Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/jtornosm/2303666-osu-micro-benchmarks/srpm/osu-micro-benchmarks.spec 
2024-08-08 18:16:01.789960292 +0200
+++
/home/jtornosm/2303666-osu-micro-benchmarks/srpm-unpacked/osu-micro-benchmarks.spec
2024-08-08 02:00:00.000000000 +0200
@@ -1,2 +1,12 @@
+## START: Set by rpmautospec
+## (rpmautospec version 0.6.5)
+## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog
+%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua:
+    release_number = 1;
+    base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}"));
+    print(release_number + base_release_number - 1);
+}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}}
+## END: Set by rpmautospec
+
 %bcond_without openmpi
 %bcond mpich %[!(0%{?rhel} >= 10)]
@@ -131,3 +141,6 @@

 %changelog
-%autochangelog
+## START: Generated by rpmautospec
+* Thu Aug 08 2024 John Doe <packager@xxxxxxxxxxx> - 7.4-1
+- Uncommitted changes
+## END: Generated by rpmautospec


Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2303666
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic
Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Ocaml, R, Python, fonts, Haskell, Java, Perl,
PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH


-- 
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=2303666

Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202303666%23c3

-- 
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Conditions]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux