Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226222
Summary: Merge Review: oprofile Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: nobody@fedoraproject.org QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com CC: wcohen@redhat.com
Fedora Merge Review: oprofile
http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/oprofile/ Initial Owner: wcohen@redhat.com
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: oprofile
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226222
bugzilla@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium
------- Additional Comments From wcohen@redhat.com 2007-05-21 11:19 EST ------- Going through the list on:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines
Results of rpmlint $ rpmlint oprofile-0.9.2-8.fc8.src.rpm W: oprofile buildprereq-use qt-devel W: oprofile buildprereq-use libxslt W: oprofile buildprereq-use docbook-style-xsl W: oprofile buildprereq-use docbook-utils W: oprofile buildprereq-use elinks W: oprofile buildprereq-use gtk2-devel W: oprofile buildprereq-use automake W: oprofile buildprereq-use binutils-devel W: oprofile mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 76, tab: line 83)
Need static package. - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
There is a GUI application for OProfile which doesn't follow the following
- MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. This is described in detail in the desktop files section of Packaging Guidelines. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation.
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=226222
Jeff Garzik jgarzik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED CC| |jgarzik@redhat.com Resolution| |CURRENTRELEASE
--- Comment #2 from Jeff Garzik jgarzik@redhat.com 2010-07-07 23:33:04 EDT --- This was merged long ago, closing.
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=226222
Parag AN(पराग) panemade@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |Reopened Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED CC| |panemade@gmail.com Resolution|CURRENTRELEASE |
--- Comment #3 from Parag AN(पराग) panemade@gmail.com 2010-07-08 06:46:40 EDT --- Hi Jeff, Can you please fix following issues and build new oprofile in rawhide?
1) Use macros as per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:RPMMacros Replace /etc occurrences with %{_sysconfdir} Replace /usr/share occurrences with %{_datadir}
2) mixing of macro style should be avoided you have used %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Using_.25.7Bbuildroot.7D...
3) Good if you will change make DESTDIR=${RPM_BUILD_ROOT} install to make install DESTDIR=${RPM_BUILD_ROOT} INSTALL="install -p"
also add -p to all install commands
This will make sure keeping upstream timestamps.
4)Buildroot is not required,%clean is not needed, remove cleaning of buildroot in %install.
5) see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Sourceforge.net and add source url as Source0: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/%%7Bname%7D/%%7Bname%7D-%%7Bversion%7D.tar....
6) Drop BuildRequires: binutils-devel as this will get pulled by binutils-static
7) see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Shared_libraries and drop
Requires(post): /sbin/ldconfig Requires(postun): /sbin/ldconfig Requires: /etc/ld.so.conf.d
8)Good to fix following rpmlint output messages (Included only messages that need to be fixed)
oprofile.src:21: W: macro-in-comment %{ix86} oprofile.src:21: W: macro-in-comment %{arm} oprofile.src:136: W: macro-in-comment %doc oprofile.src:144: W: macro-in-comment %{_includedir} oprofile.src:157: W: macro-in-comment %{_libdir} oprofile.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch83: oprofile-0.9.3-xen.patch oprofile.src: W: invalid-url Source0: oprofile-0.9.6.tar.gz oprofile-devel.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Header files and libraries for developing apps which will use oprofile. oprofile-devel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/lib64/libopabi.a oprofile-devel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/include/op_list.h oprofile-devel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/include/op_sample_file.h oprofile-devel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/include/op_config.h oprofile-devel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/lib64/liboputil.a oprofile-devel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/include/odb.h oprofile-devel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/include/op_types.h oprofile-devel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/lib64/libop.a oprofile-devel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/include/op_cpu_type.h oprofile-devel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/lib64/liboputil++.a oprofile-devel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/lib64/libodb.a oprofile-devel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/include/op_events.h oprofile-gui.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot C GUI for oprofile.
oprofile-jit.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/oprofile/libopagent.a oprofile-jit.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/ld.so.conf.d/oprofile-x86_64.conf oprofile-jit.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/oprofile/libjvmti_oprofile.a oprofile-jit.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/oprofile/libjvmti_oprofile.so oprofile-jit.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/oprofile/libopagent.so
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=226222
Parag AN(पराग) panemade@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEW Flag| |needinfo?(jgarzik@redhat.co | |m)
--- Comment #4 from Parag AN(पराग) panemade@gmail.com 2010-07-08 06:47:42 EDT --- also, this should add -static package
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=226222
Jeff Garzik jgarzik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(jgarzik@redhat.co | |m) |
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=226222
Parag AN(पराग) panemade@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC|panemade@gmail.com |
--- Comment #5 from Parag AN(पराग) panemade@gmail.com 2010-12-08 05:02:15 EST --- Unfortunately no time in future to work on this. Removing myself.
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=226222
Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |limburgher@gmail.com AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |limburgher@gmail.com Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com 2012-04-03 15:27:13 EDT --- Fresh review.
Good:
- rpmlint checks return:
oprofile.spec:129: W: macro-in-comment %doc There is a unescaped macro after a shell style comment in the specfile. Macros are expanded everywhere, so check if it can cause a problem in this case and escape the macro with another leading % if appropriate.
oprofile.spec:198: W: macro-in-%changelog %pre Macros are expanded in %changelog too, which can in unfortunate cases lead to the package not building at all, or other subtle unexpected conditions that affect the build. Even when that doesn't happen, the expansion results in possibly "rewriting history" on subsequent package revisions and generally odd entries eg. in source rpms, which is rarely wanted. Avoid use of macros in %changelog altogether, or use two '%'s to escape them, like '%%foo'.
Trivial to fix.
oprofile.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) profiler -> profile, profiles, profiled The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
Ignore.
oprofile.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/oprofile-0.9.7/COPYING oprofile-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/oprofile-0.9.7/daemon/liblegacy/p_module.h The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file, possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF.
Ignore, fixable upstream.
oprofile.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary opjitconv Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.
oprofile.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary oprofiled Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.
Fix if feasible.
oprofile.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%postun userdel
We shouldn't remove created users or groups. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UsersAndGroups
oprofile-devel.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Header files and libraries for developing apps which will use oprofile. Summary ends with a dot.
Trivial fix.
oprofile-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files.
Fix if feasible.
oprofile-gui.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot C GUI for oprofile. Summary ends with a dot.
Trivial to fix.
oprofile-gui.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US oprof -> prof, proof, o prof The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
Ignore.
oprofile-gui.x86_64: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files.
oprofile-gui.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary oprof_start Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.
oprofile-jit.x86_64: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files.
Fix if feasible.
oprofile-jit.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/oprofile/libopagent.a oprofile-jit.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/oprofile/libjvmti_oprofile.a oprofile-jit.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/oprofile/libjvmti_oprofile.so oprofile-jit.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/oprofile/libopagent.so A development file (usually source code) is located in a non-devel package. If you want to include source code in your package, be sure to create a development package.
Should the .a be included, and should the .so files be in -devel?
oprofile-jit.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/ld.so.conf.d/oprofile-x86_64.conf A non-executable file in your package is being installed in /etc, but is not a configuration file. All non-executable files in /etc should be configuration files. Mark the file as %config in the spec file.
Fix.
- package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license ( ) OK, text in %doc, matches source
Says GPLv2, should be GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+.
- spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream - package compiles on devel (x86_64) - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file - devel package ok - no .la files
I see two, remove or move to -static, or Provide -static in -devel.
- post/postun ldconfig ok - devel requires base package n-v-r
Let me know if you'd like me to commit fixes.
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=226222
--- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com 2012-04-03 15:38:28 EDT --- Ignore -static, I see that that was done, and I missed it.
Also, I tried building on rawhide, and it wants java-1.6.0-openjdk, and so fails.
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=226222
--- Comment #8 from William Cohen wcohen@redhat.com 2012-04-04 16:43:49 EDT --- oprofile-0.9.7-3 going through the build system addresses most of the points in comment #3 and #6.
profiler is listed as a noun in: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/profiler
Probably should remove the .a and .la files from oprofile-jit. However, oprofile-jit really does need the .so libraries.
Would like to remove the oprofile-devel sub-package entirely. the eclipse tools shouldn't require it any more.
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=226222
Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Last Closed|2010-07-07 23:33:04 |2012-04-05 08:04:58
--- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com 2012-04-05 08:04:58 EDT --- Fantastic, thanks for the quick response! APPROVED, closing.
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=226222
Parag AN(पराग) panemade@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |panemade@gmail.com
--- Comment #10 from Parag AN(पराग) panemade@gmail.com 2012-04-05 08:18:15 EDT --- Wow! this review is finished. Few years back I tried to review this but failed due to lack of package maintainer response.
Thanks Jon!
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=226222
--- Comment #11 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com 2012-04-05 09:10:34 EDT --- No problem. :) A lot of packages sort of eventually fall into compliance anyway.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org