[Bug 1250025] Review Request: rocksdb - A Persistent Key-Value Store for Flash and RAM Storage

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1250025

Matej Mužila  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE
Last Closed||2018-02-27 10:23:32



-- 
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 1250025] Review Request: rocksdb - A Persistent Key-Value Store for Flash and RAM Storage

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1250025

Jens Petersen  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Fixed In Version||rocksdb-5.2.1-1.fc27



-- 
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 1250025] Review Request: rocksdb - A Persistent Key-Value Store for Flash and RAM Storage

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1250025



--- Comment #11 from Jens Petersen  ---
Can it be built for f26?

-- 
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 1250025] Review Request: rocksdb - A Persistent Key-Value Store for Flash and RAM Storage

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1250025



--- Comment #10 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/rocksdb

-- 
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 1250025] Review Request: rocksdb - A Persistent Key-Value Store for Flash and RAM Storage

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1250025

Matej Mužila  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|msch...@redhat.com  |acari...@redhat.com



-- 
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 1250025] Review Request: rocksdb - A Persistent Key-Value Store for Flash and RAM Storage

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1250025

Augusto Caringi  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo+   |fedora-review+



-- 
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 1250025] Review Request: rocksdb - A Persistent Key-Value Store for Flash and RAM Storage

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1250025

Augusto Caringi  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(acaringi@redhat.c |needinfo+
   |om) |



--- Comment #9 from Augusto Caringi  ---
(In reply to Matej Mužila from comment #8)
> Hi,
> 
> I have a few comments to the pakcage review.
> 
> MUST:
> - Bundled gtest is removed before compilation so it shouldn't be a
> problem.
> (rocksdb.spec:35rm -rf third-party/gtest-1.7.0)
> 
> - fbson doesn't seem to be released separately. Facebook just bundles
> it into its projects.
> 
> SHOULD:
> - Yes, new versions are released very often. At the time of submitting
> rocksdb package for review, the highiest available version was
> packaged.
> - Package can be built on all supported architectures [1]. It was not
> intended to be added to fedora < f26.
> - The Makefile bug (use of parallel jobs) was already fixed by upstream
> so we do not need to fix it downstream.
> 
> 
> Could you please reconsider the package review?

For me it's ok... Just suggestions.

-- 
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 1250025] Review Request: rocksdb - A Persistent Key-Value Store for Flash and RAM Storage

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1250025

Matej Mužila  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||needinfo?(acaringi@redhat.c
   ||om)



--- Comment #8 from Matej Mužila  ---
Hi,

I have a few comments to the pakcage review.

MUST:
- Bundled gtest is removed before compilation so it shouldn't be a problem.
(rocksdb.spec:35rm -rf third-party/gtest-1.7.0)

- fbson doesn't seem to be released separately. Facebook just bundles
it into its projects.

SHOULD:
- Yes, new versions are released very often. At the time of submitting
rocksdb package for review, the highiest available version was
packaged.
- Package can be built on all supported architectures [1]. It was not
intended to be added to fedora < f26.
- The Makefile bug (use of parallel jobs) was already fixed by upstream
so we do not need to fix it downstream.


Could you please reconsider the package review?

[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures

-- 
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 1250025] Review Request: rocksdb - A Persistent Key-Value Store for Flash and RAM Storage

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1250025



--- Comment #7 from Augusto Caringi  ---
Package Review
==

MUST
* Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
  There are 2 third-party libraries in the source tarball: gtest and fbson
  gtest is probably only needed for tests and is being removed in %prep.
  fbson is used (It's a C++ header-only library), just to mention because
  I think that there isn't much we can do about it.

SHOULD
* Latest version is packaged: Upstream seems to be very active and is releasing
  very often, the latest version is 5.4.6
(https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/releases).
* Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
  architectures: On F25 i686 gcc hangs during compilation (maybe a bug in gcc),
  On F26 i686 and F27 i686 the compilation is successful.
* %check is present and all tests pass: There is a test suite, but 'make check'
  needs recompilation in debug mode.
* Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock: Yes, except for
  F25 i686 (compilation hangs)
* Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro:  Yes, but this option has no effect
  due to a problem in the Makefile (Explanation in a previous comment).


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

= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[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:
[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: "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated",
 "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 1072 files have unknown license.
 Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/acaringi/reviews/1250025-rocksdb/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
 There are 2 thirdy-party libraries in the source tarball: gtest and fbson
 gtest is probably only needed for tests and are being removed in spec
file.
 fbson is used (It's a C++ header-only library)
[x]: 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.
[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.
[-]: 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]: 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]: 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 

[Bug 1250025] Review Request: rocksdb - A Persistent Key-Value Store for Flash and RAM Storage

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1250025



--- Comment #6 from Augusto Caringi  ---
The build time is unusual long given the size of the software... More than 6
minutes on my machine.

The cause is that the Makefile has a problem and as a consequence it doesn't
use parallel jobs in the building process (even with the proper utilization of
%{?_smp_mflags} in the spec file).

This problem is already fixed in the upstream master branch...

Here is the complete explanation:

"Previously, the shared library (make shared_lib) was built with only one
compile line, compiling all .cc files and linking the shared library in
one step. That step would often take 10+ minutes on one machine, and
could not take advantage of multiple CPUs (it's only one invocation of
the compiler). This commit changes the shared_lib build to compile .o files
individually (placing the resulting .o files in the directory
shared-objects) and then link them into the shared library at the end,
similarly to how the java static build (jls) does it."

https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/2165

Maybe would be a good idea to apply this patch downstream...

On my machine the building time was cut by more than half.

-- 
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 1250025] Review Request: rocksdb - A Persistent Key-Value Store for Flash and RAM Storage

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1250025

Augusto Caringi  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||acari...@redhat.com



--- Comment #5 from Augusto Caringi  ---
I don't know if is this a big problem, because the package is supposed to be
included only in the upcoming F26 (F27?)... But I think that it's worthy to
mention:

The i686 build is not working in F25 (and just in F25).

And it seems that it's not a problem in the package itself, but probably a bug
in gcc.

I've first tried a koji scratch build and after some time I realized that the
i686 build was never finishing (I had to cancel the task -
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=20095030)

Then I tried a local build using "mock -r fedora-25-i386" and the same
happened...

It seems that gcc enters in an infinite loop.

For F26 and F27 the build works well for all supported architectures:

https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=20114843
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=20114856

-- 
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 1250025] Review Request: rocksdb - A Persistent Key-Value Store for Flash and RAM Storage

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1250025



--- Comment #4 from Matej Mužila  ---
I've updated the package

Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~mmuzila/rocksdb/rocksdb.spec
SRPM URL:
https://fedorapeople.org/~mmuzila/rocksdb/rocksdb-5.2.1-1.fc24.src.rpm

Description: 
Rocksdb is a library that forms the core building block for a fast key value
server, especially suited for storing data on flash drives. It has a
Log-Structured-Merge-Database (LSM) design with flexible trade offs between
Write-Amplification-Factor (WAF), Read-Amplification-Factor (RAF) and
Space-Amplification-Factor (SAF). It has multithreaded compaction, making it
specially suitable for storing multiple terabytes of data in a single database.


Fedora Account System Username: mmuzila

Notes:
  * Library calls exit(). It is caused by bad design.
  * %check is not present, because the check we need was not provided by
upstream.

-- 
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 1250025] Review Request: rocksdb - A Persistent Key-Value Store for Flash and RAM Storage

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1250025



--- Comment #3 from Michal Schorm  ---
Package Review
==

Here is the list of issues that MUST and SHOULD be fixed:

MUST
* Build flag %opt_flags missing and no justification present.
* Latest version is packaked: latest version available from upstream GIT
  is 4.9. https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/releases
  Where the 4.11 version come from?
* rpmlint output:
  rocksdb.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/librocksdb.so.4.11.0
exit@GLIBC_2.2.5
  library should not quit with exit or maybe it shouldn't be a library ?

SHOULD
* Included patch doesn't match app version
* Included patch doesn't link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
  justified.
* %check not present
* description contain 2 typos:
  Typo: "compactions" -> "compaction"
  Typo: "multi-threaded" -> "multithreaded"
* Documentation should be added or upstream should be queried to create some.
* It would be nice to add licence file to -debuginfo subpackage as it can be
installed
  as a standalone package.
* In specfile, Source0 should be changed
  from
  "...zip/4.11.fb#/%{name}-%{version}.fb.zip"
  to
  "...zip/%{name}.%{version}.fb#/%{name}-%{version}.fb.zip"
* Same for Patch0, after it will be updated to matching version
* BuildRequires should be aligned with equal number of whitespaces



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

= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[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:
[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: BSD licence in standalone licence file
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
 Note: use opt_flags macro
[?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. (only FOSS)
[-]: 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.
[?]: 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 are correct, justified where necessary.
 Note: whitespace
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
 Note: Typo: "compactions" -> "compaction"
 Note: Typo: "multi-threaded" -> "multithreaded"
 Note: no documentation.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. (Source codes
bundled)
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[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]: 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
 

[Bug 1250025] Review Request: rocksdb - A Persistent Key-Value Store for Flash and RAM Storage

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1250025



--- Comment #2 from Matej Mužila  ---
I've updated the package

Spec URL: https://mmuzila.fedorapeople.org/rocksdb.spec
SRPM URL: https://mmuzila.fedorapeople.org/rocksdb-4.11-1.fc22.src.rpm

Description: 
Rocksdb is a library that forms the core building block for a fast key value 
server, especially suited for storing data on flash drives. It has a
Log-Structured-Merge-Database (LSM) design with flexible tradeoffs between 
Write-Amplification-Factor (WAF), Read-Amplification-Factor (RAF) and 
Space-Amplification-Factor (SAF). It has multi-threaded compactions, making it
specially suitable for storing multiple terabytes of data in a single database.

Fedora Account System Username: mmuzila

-- 
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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1250025] Review Request: rocksdb - A Persistent Key-Value Store for Flash and RAM Storage

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1250025

Honza Horak  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|hho...@redhat.com   |msch...@redhat.com



-- 
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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1250025] Review Request: rocksdb - A Persistent Key-Value Store for Flash and RAM Storage

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1250025

Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED



-- 
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 1250025] Review Request: rocksdb - A Persistent Key-Value Store for Flash and RAM Storage

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1250025



--- Comment #1 from Honza Horak hho...@redhat.com ---
Package Review
==

I've spotted those issues, that should be fixed:

- soname is librocksdb.so.3.12, is this desired? I'd expect just
librocksdb.so.3, but maybe upstream decided differently. It might be correct,
but just wanted to be sure.

- %defattr(-,root,root,-) is not needed

- Package seems to contain bundled libraries:
  from build.log:
CC   third-party/gtest-1.7.0/fused-src/gtest/gtest-all.o
  and from spec (no gtest BuildRequirement) it seems gtest is bundled and used
  For third-party/fbson and third-party/flashcache I don't see them in
build.log, but it would be better if we can remove all the third-party/
directory.

- (not blocker) changing compiler flags should be done by setting variables
like EXTRA_CFLAGS or EXTRA_CXXFLAGS, rather than redefining RPM_OPT_FLAGS:
  RPM_OPT_FLAGS=$RPM_OPT_FLAGS -std=c++11
  Makefile doesn't have to be patched then.

- I don't think we need to use explicit Requires, if those are libraries:
Requires:   jemalloc
Requires:snappy
Requires:   bzip2
  Requirements are specified automatically by RPM in those cases:
libbz2.so.1()(64bit)
libjemalloc.so.1()(64bit)
libsnappy.so.1()(64bit)

- (not blocker) no links nor comments in patches


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



= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[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:
[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: BSD (2 clause), Unknown or generated. 137 files have
 unknown license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.

- Package seems to contain bundled libraries:
  from build.log:
CC   third-party/gtest-1.7.0/fused-src/gtest/gtest-all.o
  and from spec (no gtest BuildRequirement) it seems gtest is bundled and used
  For third-party/fbson and third-party/flashcache I don't see them in
build.log, but it would be better if we can remove all the third-party/
directory.

[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm  4.4
 Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: 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.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.

- I don't think we need to use explicit Requires, if those are libraries:
Requires:   jemalloc
Requires:snappy
Requires:   bzip2
  Requirements are specified automatically by RPM in those cases:
libbz2.so.1()(64bit)
libjemalloc.so.1()(64bit)
libsnappy.so.1()(64bit)

[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: 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]: 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 

[Bug 1250025] Review Request: rocksdb - A Persistent Key-Value Store for Flash and RAM Storage

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1250025

Honza Horak hho...@redhat.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||hho...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|hho...@redhat.com



-- 
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