[Bug 1199693] Review Request: pcp-pmda-cpp - C++ library for PCP PMDAs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199693

Mattia Verga  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2020-06-13 15:56:36



--- Comment #43 from Mattia Verga  ---
This package was approved and imported in repositories, but this review ticket
was never closed.
I'm closing it now.


-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1199693] Review Request: pcp-pmda-cpp - C++ library for PCP PMDAs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199693

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
 Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841
[Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a
sponsor
-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1199693] Review Request: pcp-pmda-cpp - C++ library for PCP PMDAs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199693



--- Comment #42 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pcp-pmda-cpp

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1199693] Review Request: pcp-pmda-cpp - C++ library for PCP PMDAs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199693

Lukas Berk  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lb...@redhat.com
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #41 from Lukas Berk  ---

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


Issues:
===
- Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
  Note: pcp-pmda-cpp-examples : /var/lib/pcp/pmdas/pcp-pmda-cpp-
  examples/pmdas/simple/domain.h pcp-pmda-cpp-examples : /var/lib/pcp/pmdas
  /pcp-pmda-cpp-examples/pmdas/simplecpu/domain.h pcp-pmda-cpp-examples :
  /var/lib/pcp/pmdas/pcp-pmda-cpp-examples/pmdas/trivial/domain.h
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages

These files are required for pmda functionality in PCP.


= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "BSL (v1.0)", "*No copyright* BSL", "Unknown or generated". 70
 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/lberk/src/fedora-scm/review/pcp-pmda-cpp/licensecheck.txt

 The only "no copyright" file is the license itself,  all other files are
test files and generated.

[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
 Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: 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.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: 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.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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]: Macros in Summary, 

[Bug 1199693] Review Request: pcp-pmda-cpp - C++ library for PCP PMDAs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199693



--- Comment #40 from Paul Colby  ---
Update to PMDA++ 0.4.4, which fixes a few issues with modern compilers, and
more recent versions of PCP, such as found on Fedora 26.

Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/pcolby/pcp-pmda-cpp/v0.4.4/package/rpm/pcp-pmda-cpp.spec
SRPM URL:
https://github.com/pcolby/pcp-pmda-cpp/releases/download/v0.4.4/pcp-pmda-cpp-0.4.4-1.src.rpm

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1199693] Review Request: pcp-pmda-cpp - C++ library for PCP PMDAs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199693



--- Comment #39 from Paul Colby  ---
Thanks Michael :)

Back to square one, but that's a whole lot better than being on a non-existent
/ invalid square ;)

Now to find a sponsor...

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1199693] Review Request: pcp-pmda-cpp - C++ library for PCP PMDAs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199693

Michael Schwendt  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |



--- Comment #38 from Michael Schwendt  ---
You could have cleared the fedora-review flag a long time ago after the
explanation in earlier comments.

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1199693] Review Request: pcp-pmda-cpp - C++ library for PCP PMDAs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199693

Nathan Scott  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||mgood...@redhat.com



--- Comment #37 from Nathan Scott  ---
Hi Paul,

I'm literally walking out the door to go on holiday :| ... I've CC'd Mark who
may be able to help here in my absence.  I tend to agree though - something's
not right with this BZ - should be long-since resolved.  :(

cheers.

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1199693] Review Request: pcp-pmda-cpp - C++ library for PCP PMDAs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199693



--- Comment #36 from Paul Colby  ---
(In reply to Nathan Scott from comment #27)
> Hmm, OK, thanks Michael.  I've reset that unusual flags setting, hopefully
> that gets some additional eyeballs on this one.

Hi Nathan.  It seems that did not actually work, as this ticket is being listed
(I assume incorrectly) on the "Tickets under review" page
(http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/REVIEW.html), with assignee
"(Nobody)".

Based on Michael Schwendt comments above
(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199693#c26), as well as
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process as I see it either:

1. the fedora review flag should be cleared, indicating that this ticket is
back to needing sponsoring (in which case the assignee stays blank until a
sponsor is found); or

2. the ticket should be assigned to you (assuming you're willing / empowered to
review it), and the flag left as "?" to indicate that you are the current
reviewer; or

3. change the flag to "+" to indicate that review has passed (if it has). In
which case I'm not sure what the assignee should be (the docs are unclear).

I'm perfectly happy for you (or someone with appropriate authority) to change
the ticket to any of those states, and I'll work to progress it from there. 
But as it is, I suspect its still in a not-quite-valid state as far as the
Package Review Process is defined.

Thanks :)

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1199693] Review Request: pcp-pmda-cpp - C++ library for PCP PMDAs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199693



--- Comment #35 from Brad Hubbard  ---
(In reply to Paul Colby from comment #34)
> > The Source: URL looks odd
> 
> Yes, it is a little odd ;) But its intentional; see
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL?rd=Packaging/
> SourceURL#Git_Hosting_Services

Ah, the penny drops, I see where/how I got confused now. Maybe the following
would be better to download the tar archive in your script?

$ spectool -R -g SPECS/pcp-pmda-cpp.spec

> 
> Updated URLs (since I forgot make the above Spec URL raw):
> 
> Spec URL:
> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/pcolby/pcp-pmda-cpp/v0.4.3/package/rpm/pcp-
> pmda-cpp.spec
> SRPM URL:
> https://github.com/pcolby/pcp-pmda-cpp/releases/download/v0.4.3/pcp-pmda-cpp-
> 0.4.3-1.src.rpm
> 
> Thanks :)

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1199693] Review Request: pcp-pmda-cpp - C++ library for PCP PMDAs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199693



--- Comment #34 from Paul Colby  ---
> The Source: URL looks odd

Yes, it is a little odd ;) But its intentional; see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL?rd=Packaging/SourceURL#Git_Hosting_Services

Updated URLs (since I forgot make the above Spec URL raw):

Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/pcolby/pcp-pmda-cpp/v0.4.3/package/rpm/pcp-pmda-cpp.spec
SRPM URL:
https://github.com/pcolby/pcp-pmda-cpp/releases/download/v0.4.3/pcp-pmda-cpp-0.4.3-1.src.rpm

Thanks :)

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1199693] Review Request: pcp-pmda-cpp - C++ library for PCP PMDAs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199693



--- Comment #33 from Brad Hubbard  ---
(In reply to Paul Colby from comment #31)
> > I applied the following patch to the spec file
> 
> Thanks Brad.  Yep, that should match the 0.4.3 release spec file
> (https://github.com/pcolby/pcp-pmda-cpp/blob/v0.4.3/package/rpm/pcp-pmda-cpp.
> spec).

yw.

The Source: URL looks odd and seems to make rpmbuild look for an archive called
%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz in SOURCES, are you sure it's right (see my patch)?

Source:
https://github.com/pcolby/%{name}/archive/v%{version}.tar.gz#/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz

> 
> I can't see how to edit the "description" to update the Spec URL (will look
> again in a minute - I know I've done it in the past, but its been a while).

You can't. I just create a new comment with the updated links generally.

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1199693] Review Request: pcp-pmda-cpp - C++ library for PCP PMDAs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199693



--- Comment #32 from Paul Colby  ---
I've added the *.src.rpm to the 0.4.3 release on GitHub, so the latest /
current Spec and SRPM URLS should be:

https://github.com/pcolby/pcp-pmda-cpp/blob/v0.4.3/package/rpm/pcp-pmda-cpp.spec

and

https://github.com/pcolby/pcp-pmda-cpp/releases/download/v0.4.3/pcp-pmda-cpp-0.4.3-1.src.rpm

respectively.

Though I still can't see any way to update the top-level post's URLs, which I
used to do in the past...?

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1199693] Review Request: pcp-pmda-cpp - C++ library for PCP PMDAs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199693



--- Comment #31 from Paul Colby  ---
> I applied the following patch to the spec file

Thanks Brad.  Yep, that should match the 0.4.3 release spec file
(https://github.com/pcolby/pcp-pmda-cpp/blob/v0.4.3/package/rpm/pcp-pmda-cpp.spec).

I can't see how to edit the "description" to update the Spec URL (will look
again in a minute - I know I've done it in the past, but its been a while).

> Not sure about the "Source" line below?

In the past, I've built source RPM via the make-src-rpm.sh script
(https://github.com/pcolby/pcp-pmda-cpp/blob/v0.4.3/package/rpm/make-src-rpm.sh),
which just does some sanity checking and validation around packaging up the
release source code.  Then I upload it to the GitHub release manually.  I see
that I haven't done that for the 0.4.3 release yet, and I don't have a Fedora
build machine handy at the moment.  Will try to build the SRPM shortly.

> Hope this is OK? Didn't mean to hijack the show...

Perfectly OK with me :)

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1199693] Review Request: pcp-pmda-cpp - C++ library for PCP PMDAs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199693



--- Comment #30 from Brad Hubbard  ---
I applied the following patch to the spec file and it seems to build fine, in
copr and koji, now that it's at the latest release. Not sure about the "Source"
line below?

diff -up SPECS/pcp-pmda-cpp.spec.fix SPECS/pcp-pmda-cpp.spec
--- SPECS/pcp-pmda-cpp.spec.fix 2016-10-12 14:45:52.970266334 +1000
+++ SPECS/pcp-pmda-cpp.spec 2016-10-12 14:39:20.601300196 +1000
@@ -8,11 +8,11 @@

 Summary: PMDA++ Library
 Name: pcp-pmda-cpp
-Version: 0.4.2
+Version: 0.4.3
 Release: 1%{?dist}
 License: Boost
 Group: System Environment/Libraries
-Source:
https://github.com/pcolby/%{name}/archive/v%{version}.tar.gz#/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
+Source: https://github.com/pcolby/%{name}/archive/v%{version}.tar.gz
 URL: https://github.com/pcolby/%{name}

 BuildRequires: boost-devel >= 1.32



I uploaded the new spec file here:
http://people.redhat.com/bhubbard/pcp-pmda-cpp.spec
srpm: http://people.redhat.com/bhubbard/pcp-pmda-cpp-0.4.3-1.fc24.src.rpm
Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16057195
Copr repo:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/badone/pcp-pmda-cpp/build/464191/

Hope this is OK? Didn't mean to hijack the show...

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1199693] Review Request: pcp-pmda-cpp - C++ library for PCP PMDAs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199693



--- Comment #29 from Brad Hubbard  ---
Looks like it's missing
https://github.com/pcolby/pcp-pmda-cpp/pull/29/commits/817e66f0ba5bf94cb2234216b33ebf86fba86bc0
which makes sense. let me see if I can get it working.

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1199693] Review Request: pcp-pmda-cpp - C++ library for PCP PMDAs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199693



--- Comment #28 from Anthony Green  ---
Created attachment 1209426
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1209426=edit
Build log with errors on F24

Hi.  I'd like to see this in Fedora as well.  I've tried building the srpm but
got errors.  See the attached build-log.txt.
Thanks!

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1199693] Review Request: pcp-pmda-cpp - C++ library for PCP PMDAs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199693

Nathan Scott  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review+  |fedora-review?



--- Comment #27 from Nathan Scott  ---
Hmm, OK, thanks Michael.  I've reset that unusual flags setting, hopefully that
gets some additional eyeballs on this one.

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1199693] Review Request: pcp-pmda-cpp - C++ library for PCP PMDAs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199693



--- Comment #26 from Michael Schwendt  ---
Running into this ticket again while cleaning up my filtered mail folders, I
have no idea what's been going on in here.

By setting the fedora-review flag to '+', you've removed the ticket from the
visible part of the needsponsor list at:
http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/

Due to that, it's very difficult to find this ticket.

Only very few people browse the "Tickets under review" list and watch out for
stalled reviews.


> Nathan Scott 2015-06-03 19:06:27 EDT
>
> Marking reviewed (by myself and Michael Schwendt) - no further follow ups
> received and all earlier recommendations incorporated.
> Flags: fedora-review+

This is unusual activity.

Normally, you would assign the ticket to yourself and set the fedora-review
flag to '?' to show that you accept the role of the reviewer:

  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process

Only when done with the official review, you would set the flag to '+'.

Further, until recently, you would have needed to be a member of the
packagersponsors group to be able to review and approve this package. The
recent change to the process is that everyone in packager group may review and
approve packages from new contributors. Yet they still need to follow the How
To Get Sponsored document.

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1199693] Review Request: pcp-pmda-cpp - C++ library for PCP PMDAs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199693

Nathan Scott nath...@redhat.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||brol...@redhat.com,
   ||lb...@redhat.com
   Doc Type|Bug Fix |Enhancement
  Flags||fedora-review+


--- Doc Text *updated* ---
Feature: New C++ API for Performance Co-Pilot PMDAs

Reason: Object oriented interfaces augmenting the underlying C libraries 
providing more options for PCP PMDA developers.

Result: Increased language coverage and features for PCP PMDA developers.


--- Comment #25 from Nathan Scott nath...@redhat.com ---
Marking reviewed (by myself and Michael Schwendt) - no further follow ups
received and all earlier recommendations incorporated.

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1199693] Review Request: pcp-pmda-cpp - C++ library for PCP PMDAs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199693

Nathan Scott nath...@redhat.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?   |



--- Comment #22 from Nathan Scott nath...@redhat.com ---
I think its waiting in the queue http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/
not sure there's anything else needing to be done on our end currently, Paul.

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1199693] Review Request: pcp-pmda-cpp - C++ library for PCP PMDAs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199693



--- Comment #23 from Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) 
bugs.mich...@gmx.net ---
Well, there's 

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group
  [from https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Package_Maintainers ]

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1199693] Review Request: pcp-pmda-cpp - C++ library for PCP PMDAs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199693



--- Comment #24 from Paul Colby red...@colby.id.au ---
Thanks Michael.

Are you now happy now that the issues you raised above have been addressed? Or
are you unable to re-review them now? (I was kind of waiting on your ack/nak
before attempting any next steps).

Cheers.

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1199693] Review Request: pcp-pmda-cpp - C++ library for PCP PMDAs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199693



--- Comment #21 from Paul Colby red...@colby.id.au ---
I'm not sure how to progress this?  Any suggestions?

Thanks :)

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1199693] Review Request: pcp-pmda-cpp - C++ library for PCP PMDAs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199693

Nathan Scott nath...@redhat.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||needinfo?



--- Comment #20 from Nathan Scott nath...@redhat.com ---
Hi all,

This package appears to be in good shape now, from all the reviews so far - can
we get this moved along to the next step of the new-Fedora-package process at
this stage, or is further refinement needed?

Thanks!

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1199693] Review Request: pcp-pmda-cpp - C++ library for PCP PMDAs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199693



--- Comment #19 from Nathan Scott nath...@redhat.com ---
(In reply to Paul Colby from comment #17)
 You can see all of the changes (not many) since the previous review Spec and
 SRPM files at:

Looks good to me Paul, thanks.

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1199693] Review Request: pcp-pmda-cpp - C++ library for PCP PMDAs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199693



--- Comment #18 from Nathan Scott nath...@redhat.com ---
(In reply to Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) from comment
#16)
 * The -examples package now needs an explicit dependency on pcp, because
 that is the package that provides the /var/lib/pcp/pmdas directory.
 
 The same bug affects the pcp packages: bug 1204467
 

This has been fixed in the upstream pcp repo, will be tested further and Fedora
update on next pcp release (pcp-3.10.4).  Thanks again.

cheers.

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1199693] Review Request: pcp-pmda-cpp - C++ library for PCP PMDAs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199693



--- Comment #17 from Paul Colby red...@colby.id.au ---
 The -examples package now needs an explicit dependency on pcp

Done :)

 The explicit dependency on pcp-libs-devel would be safer ... if it were 
 arch-specific

Done :)  I see now that this is a requirement (well, stated as should at
least) in the official Packaging Guidelines too
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requires_2).

 It doesn't build with latest GCC 5 in Rawhide

Fixed.  Now builds, tests, etc on Fedora 22 Alpha 3.

Once again, I've updated the Spec and SRPM files linked at the top.

You can see all of the changes (not many) since the previous review Spec and
SRPM files at:

https://github.com/pcolby/pcp-pmda-cpp/compare/5fde84b0f1468a8d7f4266e8a910b4eb74f13086...440a0fd3aa4182b037cf04818d8210513959d2ac

Thanks again!

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1199693] Review Request: pcp-pmda-cpp - C++ library for PCP PMDAs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199693



--- Comment #16 from Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) 
bugs.mich...@gmx.net ---
* The -examples package now needs an explicit dependency on pcp, because that
is the package that provides the /var/lib/pcp/pmdas directory.

The same bug affects the pcp packages: bug 1204467


 %package devel
 Requires: pcp-libs-devel

The explicit dependency on pcp-libs-devel would be safer (for the case when
linking with any of the pcp shared libs), if it were arch-specific:

  Requires: pcp-libs-devel%{?_isa}

That is, because -devel packages and their dependencies are multilib packages:
# yum list pcp-libs-devel|grep ^pcp
pcp-libs-devel.i686 3.10.3-1.fc21   
updates
pcp-libs-devel.x86_64   3.10.3-1.fc21   
updates


* It doesn't build with latest GCC 5 in Rawhide:

[...]
/builddir/build/BUILD/pcp-pmda-cpp-0.4.2/pcp-pmda-cpp-0.4.2/example/simple/../../include/pcp-cpp/pmda.hpp:
In member function 'virtual int pcp::pmda::on_store(pmResult*, pmdaExt*)':
/builddir/build/BUILD/pcp-pmda-cpp-0.4.2/pcp-pmda-cpp-0.4.2/example/simple/../../include/pcp-cpp/pmda.hpp:1135:38:
error: suggest parentheses around operand of '!' or change '' to '' or '!'
to '~' [-Werror=parentheses]
 if (!description.flags  pcp::storable_metric) {
  ^
In file included from
/builddir/build/BUILD/pcp-pmda-cpp-0.4.2/pcp-pmda-cpp-0.4.2/example/simple/simple.cpp:18:0:
/builddir/build/BUILD/pcp-pmda-cpp-0.4.2/pcp-pmda-cpp-0.4.2/example/simple/../../include/pcp-cpp/pmda.hpp:
In member function 'virtual int pcp::pmda::on_store(pmResult*, pmdaExt*)':
/builddir/build/BUILD/pcp-pmda-cpp-0.4.2/pcp-pmda-cpp-0.4.2/example/simple/../../include/pcp-cpp/pmda.hpp:1135:38:
error: suggest parentheses around operand of '!' or change '' to '' or '!'
to '~' [-Werror=parentheses]
 if (!description.flags  pcp::storable_metric) {
  ^
cc1plus: all warnings being treated as errors
[...]

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1199693] Review Request: pcp-pmda-cpp - C++ library for PCP PMDAs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199693



--- Comment #15 from Brad Hubbard bhubb...@redhat.com ---
Not sure I'm the best person to ask but it looks to me like you guys have
worked out most of the kinks.

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1199693] Review Request: pcp-pmda-cpp - C++ library for PCP PMDAs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199693



--- Comment #13 from Nathan Scott nath...@redhat.com ---
(In reply to Paul Colby from comment #11)
 Hi Nathan,
 
 It seems that the issue with needing pmcd is that my PMNS roots #include
 stdpmid, but stdpmid is not generated until pmcd runs at least once.

That's correct.  That may change at some point, but best to not rely on it.

 However, it seems that the #include was unnecessary since my sample PMNS
 files don't depend on anything defined in stdpmid, so I'll remove that
 include from the examples.

OK, sounds good.

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1199693] Review Request: pcp-pmda-cpp - C++ library for PCP PMDAs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199693



--- Comment #14 from Nathan Scott nath...@redhat.com ---
(In reply to Paul Colby from comment #12)
  for the base PCP packages, we were allowed to put the source in with the
  PCP_PMDAS_DIR binaries, since they're demos and its a devel package, so
  consider relocating everything from pcp-pmda-cpp-examples into
  /var/lib/pcp/pmdas/pcp-cpp-examples.
 
 Done.  Though I replaced 'pcp-cpp-examples' with 'pcp-pmda-cpp-examples' so
 that the directory includes the full RPM package name - seems more
 responsible that way :)

Ah, good idea.

 I believe this should be fixed now, as I've moved the examples under
 $PCP_PMDA_DIR (aka %{_pmdasdir}), ie /var/lib/pcp/pmdas, which is owned by
 the implicitly-required 'pcp' package.
 
 (I haven't entirely groked the RPM file/dir ownership concepts though, so
 might be missing something here)

Yep, I think your approach there is correct.

 There's now a couple of, what I believe to be benign, warnings in the
 fedora-review output:
 
 * Header files (*/domain.h) in the examples package - these are not C/C++
 source header files, but rather, include files for the PCP simple
 preprocessor (pmcpp).
 * devel-file-in-non-devel-package *-examples/pmdas/*.cpp - as noted by
 Nathan above, this follows the pre-existing convention of allowing example
 source code to be included with example PMDAs.  But if it bothers anyone,
 I'm more than happy to simply leave those files out of the packages for now.

I agree - these are benign, and there is value in having these files remain
there.  Since this is a development package (and we've done the same thing in
PCP itself), I'd recommend keeping it as-is.

It's all looking pretty good to me - Michael, Brad, did you guys see any
remaining issues in the latest version?

cheers.

--
Nathan

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1199693] Review Request: pcp-pmda-cpp - C++ library for PCP PMDAs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199693



--- Comment #12 from Paul Colby red...@colby.id.au ---
 for the base PCP packages, we were allowed to put the source in with the
 PCP_PMDAS_DIR binaries, since they're demos and its a devel package, so
 consider relocating everything from pcp-pmda-cpp-examples into
 /var/lib/pcp/pmdas/pcp-cpp-examples.

Done.  Though I replaced 'pcp-cpp-examples' with 'pcp-pmda-cpp-examples' so
that the directory includes the full RPM package name - seems more responsible
that way :)

 There are doc files in the tarball, which you could include.

Done. I've include the license file via %license and some other docs via %doc.

 You can wrap the entire %clean section in the conditionals, since if
 you don't need it you don't need to include an empty section.

Done :)

 The group for base runtime libraries has been System Environment/
 Libraries for many years. The group Development/Libraries is for the
 separate -devel buildtime packages.

Your suggestion had me a little stumped at first, since these are
development-only (ie header-only) libraries.  However, I eventually realised
that only the *-devel subpackage should be Development/Libraries whereas the
top-level package (which doesn't actually get built as an RPM, because it
contains no files) should/would be System Environment/Libraries if it were to
ever exist.

So I've updated the top-level Group as suggested :)

 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Header_Only_Libraries

Thanks. I hadn't noticed that section before.

I've added the *-static Provides, and removed the noarch as dictated by the
Packaging Guidelines.

 Directory %{_datadir}/doc/pcp-cpp is not included, and no other package
 provides it yet either (repoquery --whatprovides /usr/share/doc/pcp-cpp). 
 This needs to be examined.

I believe this should be fixed now, as I've moved the examples under
$PCP_PMDA_DIR (aka %{_pmdasdir}), ie /var/lib/pcp/pmdas, which is owned by the
implicitly-required 'pcp' package.

(I haven't entirely groked the RPM file/dir ownership concepts though, so might
be missing something here)

 If the tests are suitable for a %check section, one should be added to
 the spec file.

Done.  Though that does introduce the otherwise-unnecessary build requirement
for the 'pcp' package (needed for some functional tests).  Seems worth it to me
:)

This also allowed me to simplify the %build and %install steps, since they were
doing extra work to avoid building the unit tests previously.  Now they just
build everything.  (Of course, that does may the build take longer, but its
still pretty quick anyway).

I've updated the files at the Spec and source RPM URLs above.  You can see a
diff for the Spec file changes since the last review (as well as the other
files that changed, if interested in those) at:

https://github.com/pcolby/pcp-pmda-cpp/compare/838957be550f0826179cc3cd16ab6df74d343702...5fde84b0f1468a8d7f4266e8a910b4eb74f13086#diff-25

There's now a couple of, what I believe to be benign, warnings in the
fedora-review output:

* Header files (*/domain.h) in the examples package - these are not C/C++
source header files, but rather, include files for the PCP simple
preprocessor (pmcpp).
* devel-file-in-non-devel-package *-examples/pmdas/*.cpp - as noted by Nathan
above, this follows the pre-existing convention of allowing example source code
to be included with example PMDAs.  But if it bothers anyone, I'm more than
happy to simply leave those files out of the packages for now.

Thanks!

Paul.

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1199693] Review Request: pcp-pmda-cpp - C++ library for PCP PMDAs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199693



--- Comment #11 from Paul Colby red...@colby.id.au ---
Hi Nathan,

It seems that the issue with needing pmcd is that my PMNS roots #include
stdpmid, but stdpmid is not generated until pmcd runs at least once.

However, it seems that the #include was unnecessary since my sample PMNS files
don't depend on anything defined in stdpmid, so I'll remove that include from
the examples.

Cheers.

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1199693] Review Request: pcp-pmda-cpp - C++ library for PCP PMDAs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199693



--- Comment #10 from Paul Colby red...@colby.id.au ---
Hi Nathan,

The short version: should I be able to use dbpmda without ever running the pmcd
service?

The long version:

I've added a %check section to the RPM Spec file.

The PMDA++ project provides two different checks - unit tests and functional
tests.  When you run make check it simply runs both, but you can run make
check-unit and/or make check-functional independently.

Now, the unit tests are working fine, but some of the functional tests use the
dbpmda command to validate the sample PMDAs' DSO interfaces.

For example
https://github.com/pcolby/pcp-pmda-cpp/blob/master/test/functional/test_simple_open_dso.command

Now, it seems that the dbpmda command won't succeed unless the pmcd service is
running (or has run at some point... presumably it caches something somwhere).
Otherwise I get an error like: 

dbpmda: Cannot load namespace from /tmp/.../root: Problems parsing PMNS
definitions.

This error goes away if I start the pmcd service.

It seems inappropriate for an RPM Spec file to require a specific service, such
as pmcd, to be running to build.  So, is there something I can change to avoid
the need for dbpmda to have pmcd running?  Or is it simply impractical to
include these tests?

Note, this looks the simlar to (if not the same as)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062443

What I'll probably do for now, is separate out the tests that require dbpmda
(really they're more integration than functional tests anyway), and set the
%check section to run all but those tests.  But I would like to know if it is
(or should be) possible to include those tests eventually.

Thanks.

Paul.

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1199693] Review Request: pcp-pmda-cpp - C++ library for PCP PMDAs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199693



--- Comment #2 from Paul Colby red...@colby.id.au ---
Thanks Michael.  I'll take a look at the fedora-review tool, and fix whatever
it finds.

Thanks again :)

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1199693] Review Request: pcp-pmda-cpp - C++ library for PCP PMDAs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199693



--- Comment #8 from Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) 
bugs.mich...@gmx.net ---
 There's also a warning for no-documentation on the *-devel package.

The story about warnings and errors is really just that rpmlint (and a few
other tools) _try_ to be helpful by pointing out things which may be bad. It
is not always MUST-FIX error condition, and in some cases rpmlint is mistaken.

Also see:

  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#no-documentation
  ( from https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Package_Maintainers )

There are doc files in the tarball, which you could include.

Especially:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text


 %clean
 %if 0%{?rhel}  6
 %{__rm} -rf %{buildroot}
 %endif

You can wrap the entire %clean section in the conditionals, since if you don't
need it you don't need to include an empty section.

  %if 0%{?rhel}  6
  %clean
  %{__rm} -rf %{buildroot}
  %endif


 Name: pcp-pmda-cpp
 Group: Development/Libraries

The group for base runtime libraries has been System Environment/Libraries
for many years. The group Development/Libraries is for the separate -devel
buildtime packages.


 %description devel
 PMDA++ is a header-only library 

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Header_Only_Libraries


 %files examples
 %{_bindir}/pmda*
 %{_datadir}/doc/pcp-cpp/examples/

Directory %{_datadir}/doc/pcp-cpp is not included, and no other package
provides it yet either (repoquery --whatprovides /usr/share/doc/pcp-cpp). This
needs to be examined.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories


 unit test coverage

If the tests are suitable for a %check section, one should be added to the spec
file. [Some people disagree because they would like tests to be run much more
often than at rpmbuild-time, but %check sections can be helpful if they reveal
incompatibilities in a changed build environment.]

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1199693] Review Request: pcp-pmda-cpp - C++ library for PCP PMDAs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199693



--- Comment #9 from Paul Colby red...@colby.id.au ---
Thanks Michael, some really good stuff there! :D

It's going to take me a day or two to work through it all :)

Cheers.

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1199693] Review Request: pcp-pmda-cpp - C++ library for PCP PMDAs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199693



--- Comment #6 from Nathan Scott nath...@redhat.com ---
Ah, good stuff - yep, build issues are resolved now, few minor rpmlint errors
as discussed already but you're onto those too already.

I remember now there's also a man page warning on the example executables,
which can probably be waived since they're examples.  However, I notice we're
installing the PMDA binaries into /usr/bin - whereas, the usual location would
be below $PCP_PMDAS_DIR from /etc/pcp.conf (these are not user-invocable
binaries of course).

Care will need to be taken with pmdasimple and pmdatrivial though, since
similarly named C-library demos exist in the base PCP packages... should we use
a /var/lib/pcp/pmdas/pcp-cpp-examples directory, perhaps?  Ah, I see also that
the source code for these has ended up in /usr/share/doc/pcp-cpp/examples --
for the base PCP packages, we were allowed to put the source in with the
PCP_PMDAS_DIR binaries, since they're demos and its a devel package, so
consider relocating everything from pcp-pmda-cpp-examples into
/var/lib/pcp/pmdas/pcp-cpp-examples.

cheers.

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1199693] Review Request: pcp-pmda-cpp - C++ library for PCP PMDAs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199693



--- Comment #7 from Paul Colby red...@colby.id.au ---
 few minor rpmlint errors as discussed

Fixed :)

 there's also a man page warning on the example executables,
 which can probably be waived since they're examples

Great.  I have no idea (yet) how to write man pages :|

There's also a warning for no-documentation on the *-devel package.  I could
make the Spec file build the Doxygen documentation and include that, but
currently it only generates HTML.  Apparently Doxygen supports Unix man pages
output too, but I've never tried it.  I'll have a quick look into that, but not
sure how much of a rabbit-hole it might be.

 Care will need to be taken with pmdasimple and pmdatrivial though, ...
 so consider relocating everything from pcp-pmda-cpp-examples into
 /var/lib/pcp/pmdas/pcp-cpp-examples.

Yep, I'll do that :)

Thanks.

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1199693] Review Request: pcp-pmda-cpp - C++ library for PCP PMDAs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199693



--- Comment #5 from Paul Colby red...@colby.id.au ---
Thanks Nathan,

I've fixed the _FORTIFY_SOURCE issues (you're right, they were related to
disabling optimisations for unit test coverage reports only) by updating the
build system to not touch optimisaton flags if _FORTIFY_SOURCE(!=0) is present.

I've also updated the build system to use Fedora's gtest library (Debian
refuses to provide that) instead of the external gtest project (which still
gets pulled in on Debian systems, or when gtest-devel is not installed), and so
prevents the build system needing svn - at least for Fedora, when gtest-devel
is installed (the spec file now requires gtest-devel, but otherwise would
require svn, and external network access).

I've just updated the *.spec and *.src.rpm files listed above (probably just
minutes after your fedora-review run).  fedora-review now builds cleanly for
me, but I can see the two issues you've noted in the generated review file.

Also, before building the *.src.rpm, I run rpmlint which is reporting:

pcp-pmda-cpp.spec:28 W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build %{__rm} -r %{buildroot}

So I'll look into that one too.

Thanks again :)

Paul.

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1199693] Review Request: pcp-pmda-cpp - C++ library for PCP PMDAs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199693



--- Comment #1 from Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) 
bugs.mich...@gmx.net ---
Considering pointing the fedora-review tool at review tickets like this. It
evaluates the Spec URL: and SRPM URL: lines, downloads the latest files,
does a local test-build with Mock and then performs checks for many packaging
issues:

  fedora-review -b 1199693

Currently, the src.rpm does not build yet. I'll return to this ticket. It would
be good, if you could take a look at the fedora-review tool and make it build
(or use koji scratch-builds as explained in the How To Join guide).

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1199693] Review Request: pcp-pmda-cpp - C++ library for PCP PMDAs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199693

Nathan Scott nath...@redhat.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||nath...@redhat.com



--- Comment #3 from Nathan Scott nath...@redhat.com ---
Created attachment 1000797
  -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1000797action=edit
Workaround for build issues with cmake and overriding optimisation

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1199693] Review Request: pcp-pmda-cpp - C++ library for PCP PMDAs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199693

Nathan Scott nath...@redhat.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||bhubb...@redhat.com



--- Comment #4 from Nathan Scott nath...@redhat.com ---
Hi Paul,

I came across some build issues related to the overriding of optimisation flags
(for test coverage verification AIUI) playing havoc with -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE.  I
ended up getting a build to complete by cheating and patching out the cmake
code that overrides optimisation.  Have attached a little patch... but I think
you've since been hacking on this (based on upstream git log) - for me, though,
0.4.2 still exhibits this problem.

The other two little rpmlint issues I saw after that were:
- the package Summary: lines need to not end with full stops
- need not 'Requires: pcp-libs' - the build process inserts this dep

cheers.

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1199693] Review Request: pcp-pmda-cpp - C++ library for PCP PMDAs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199693

Paul Colby red...@colby.id.au changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841
[Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a
sponsor
-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review