Re: Fwd: [Bug 19] Review request: blcr - Berkeley Lab Checkpoint/Restart for Linux

From: Paul H. Hargrove (PHHargrove_at_lbl_dot_gov)
Date: Tue Dec 16 2008 - 12:48:18 PST

  • Next message: Paul H. Hargrove: "Re: Fwd: [Bug 19] Review request: blcr - Berkeley Lab Checkpoint/Restart for Linux"
       As always, thanks for you advocacy efforts on behalf of BLCR.
       I don't have time right now to address the comments individually in e-mail. 
      Nor am I likely to have time to make corresponding changes in 0.8.0 (which 
    is already much later than I had hoped).  However, I will be happy to work on 
    addressing many or most of these in 0.8.1.
       As for the 32-bit stuff.  The simplest thing for me to do would be to split 
    the libs into 2 packages blcr-libs and blcr-libs-32bit.  However, the comments 
    appear to want a 64-bit platform not to *build* the 32-bit libraries, which 
    might contrary to peoples expectations on non-Fedora platforms.  I'll give a 
    little bit of thought to this when I have more time.
       As always, I'll be happy to consider any contributed patches to the BLCR 
    spec file.  However, I would rather fork and maintain two spec files than have 
    a single one that is overly specific to Fedora and useless, for instance, on SuSE.
       I might actually hit one or two of the most minor things (like the "#empty" 
    file and packages missing docs) for 0.8.0, but only because they require 
    little or no testing.
    Neal Becker wrote:
    > Review for inclusion into rpmfusion is _finally_ moving forward.  I got these 
    > comments.
    > I'm not sure what do do about building 32-bit stuff on 64-bit arch.   I think 
    > the standard procedure is that default build on 64bit builds only 64bit, and 
    > if you want 32 you ask for it, and get a different rpm (xxx.i386 vs 
    > xxx.x86_64).   
    > ----------  Forwarded Message  ----------
    > Subject: [Bug 19] Review request: blcr - Berkeley Lab Checkpoint/Restart for 
    > Linux
    > Date: Tuesday 16 December 2008
    > From: RPM Fusion Bugzilla <noreply_at_rpmfusion_dot_org>
    > To: rpmfusion-package-review_at_rpmfusion_dot_org
    > --- Comment #10 from Orcan Ogetbil <orcanbahri_at_yahoo_dot_com>  2008-12-16 06:48:50 
    > ---
    > This package surely needs some work. To start with:
    > * mock build fails on my x86_64. This is because you are trying to build and
    > include 32 bit libraries in a 64 bit package, which is not allowed. If one
    > needs 32 bit libraries (s)he can install blcr-libs.i386 in addition to
    > blcr_libs.x86_64 . So you should remove the "libdir32" bits from the SPEC file.
    > * Leave a comment in the SPEC file for why you are using ExclusiveArch.
    > * Try to avoid mixed ${ } %{_ } notation
    > * BR: "perl" and "sed" are not required since they are in the minimum build
    > environment.
    > * Please remove the static library bits from the SPEC file.
    > * rpmlint complains:
    >    blcr-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
    >    blcr-testsuite.x86_64: W: no-documentation
    >    blcr-testsuite.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
    > /usr/libexec/blcr-testsuite/shellinit
    > For the first two, at least put the license file(s) in those packages.
    > The last one is actually about an empty files. Well it is not empty but when
    > you open it, it says "#empty". Do you think we should include that file?
    > * Patches should be explained and be submitted to upstream if they are not
    > strictly Fedora specific.
    > * The file tests/CountingApp.class is binary and should be removed during %prep
    > * The file README.devel is not and should be packaged.
    > * Buildroot should be one of these:
    >    %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX)
    >    %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
    >    %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root
    > * Why do you have:
    >    # Ensure we don't build for a i386
    >    %ifarch i386
    >      set +x
    >      echo
    > "=========================================================================="
    >      echo "ERROR: Cannot build BLCR for a generic i386." >&2
    >      echo "ERROR: Add \"--target `uname -p`\" (or similar) to the rpmbuild
    > command line." >&2
    >      echo
    > "=========================================================================="
    >      exit 1
    >    %endif
    > in the SPEC file? Just remove i386 from ExclusiveArch and you should be fine.
    > * Please use
    >   %post libs -p /sbin/ldconfig
    >   %postun libs -p /sbin/ldconfig
    > Afaik, they'll work more efficient.
    > * We prefer %defattr(-,root,root,-)
    > * Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros 
    > section
    > of Fedora Packaging Guidelines . Avoid inconsistencies such as:
    >    %clean
    >    rm -rf ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}
    >    %install
    >    rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
    > * Disttag is missing.
    > * The Fedora-specific compilation flag -fstack-protector is not passed to the
    > compiler. For a list of flags that should be passed to the compiler, please do
    > a
    >    rpm --eval %optflags
    > * Parallel make must be supported whenever possible. If it is not supported,
    > this should be noted in the SPEC file as a comment.
    > * Shall we package the examples, tests directories?
    Paul H. Hargrove                          PHHargrove_at_lbl_dot_gov
    Future Technologies Group
    HPC Research Department                   Tel: +1-510-495-2352
    Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory     Fax: +1-510-486-6900

  • Next message: Paul H. Hargrove: "Re: Fwd: [Bug 19] Review request: blcr - Berkeley Lab Checkpoint/Restart for Linux"