https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1149566
Christopher Brown changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1149566
--- Comment #34 from Philip Kovacs ---
Please close this bug duplicate of bug #1489668. This one is long stalled,
the other is active.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified abou
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1149566
Philip Kovacs changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pkde...@yahoo.com
--- Comment #33 fro
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1149566
--- Comment #32 from Adam Huffman ---
Hi Andrew,
I'm happy to review your 16.05.x package if you submit it.
Haven't heard from David in several months, so this does appear to be stalled
at the moment.
Adam
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1149566
--- Comment #31 from Andrew Elwell ---
Hi, is there any movement on this? If not I'll start a new package based on the
current upsream release of 16.05.5 (http://slurm.schedmd.com/download.html)
Andrew
--
You are receiving this mail because
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1149566
--- Comment #30 from Adam Huffman ---
Hi David,
Could you update to 15.08.11?
Thanks,
Adam
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1149566
--- Comment #29 from Adam Huffman ---
Hi David,
It's certainly acceptable to include patches in the RPM to fix these errors,
while also submitting them upstream.
Here are a couple of things highlighted by fedora-review:
- If (and only if) th
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1149566
Adam Huffman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--
You are receiving this ma
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1149566
Adam Huffman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|bl...@verdurin.com
--
You are receivi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1149566
--- Comment #28 from David Brown ---
Adam,
Some of these we can fix as package managers others (a lot of the errors) the
slurm guys need to fix.
slurm.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-setgroups /usr/bin/salloc
Potential security issue as its calli
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1149566
--- Comment #27 from David Brown ---
Adam,
Okay here's a smaller rpmlint output.
$ rpmlint results/15.08.10/1.el7/slurm-*.rpm
slurm.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 15.08.10-1
['15.08.10-1.el7.centos', '15.08.10-1.centos']
slurm.x
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1149566
--- Comment #26 from Adam Huffman ---
I see you've already done 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
__
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1149566
--- Comment #25 from Adam Huffman ---
Hi David,
There's certainly no lack of things to clean up in the upstream build
process...
With my Copr builds I did the minimum to make the upstream spec file work.
Perhaps you could add the FORTIFY_SOU
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1149566
--- Comment #24 from David Brown ---
I should mention that those errors are from me commenting out all my sed rpath
commands in the spec posted.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notif
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1149566
--- Comment #23 from David Brown ---
Adam,
The issue I was trying to fix was when rpmlint errors about the following...
slurm.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libpmi.so.0.0.0
['/usr/lib64']
slurm-pam_slurm.x86_64: E: binar
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1149566
--- Comment #22 from Adam Huffman ---
Hi David,
It's also worth mentioning that there are systemd unit files in the upstream
source now. While you might want to patch them, you shouldn't need to include
your own versions anymore.
Cheers,
Ada
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1149566
--- Comment #21 from Adam Huffman ---
Hi David,
Thanks for the update.
First observation is about the build part.
I and someone on the mailing list found that the following in %build fixed the
FORTIFY warnings during compilation:
#Fix for
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1149566
--- Comment #20 from David Brown ---
Adam,
Here's the 15.08.10 scratch build of slurm.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13635064
https://github.com/dmlb2000/slurm-spec/raw/master/slurm.spec
There's a few warnings that pop u
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1149566
--- Comment #19 from Adam Huffman ---
Hi David,
If you can update this to 15.08.10, I'll try to find time to review it.
Recently I've been building it for my own use on Copr, using minimal changes to
the upstream spec, but yours is much more
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1149566
--- Comment #18 from Upstream Release Monitoring
---
dmlb2000's scratch build of slurm-15.08.4-1.fc24.src.rpm for f24 completed
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12095847
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on t
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1149566
--- Comment #17 from David Brown ---
Interesting scratch build, seems to have gotten on the wrong bug...
Thanks,
- David Brown
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1149566
--- Comment #16 from Upstream Release Monitoring
---
pbrobinson's scratch build of
linux-user-chroot?#b7afe5173cbd31b029b027b6f8a14baa5e6ce87a for
epel7-archbootstrap and
git://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/linux-user-chroot?#b7afe5173cbd31b029b027b
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1149566
--- Comment #15 from David Brown ---
Yes this package is still waiting for review. I'd love someone to review it and
pass off on it.
I can get an update to the current version though there isn't very many changes
to the spec or resulting RPMs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1149566
--- Comment #14 from Christopher Brown ---
Hi David,
We are interested in getting the packaged for epel.
I take it this is just awaiting review?
Anything I can do to assist?
Regards
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1149566
--- Comment #13 from David Brown ---
This is for an updated rawhide build for 14.11.6
slurm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scalable -> salable,
callable, calculable
slurm.src: W: strange-permission slurm-14.11.6.tar.bz2 0640L
sl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1149566
--- Comment #12 from David Brown ---
This is for an updated rawhide build for 14.11.0
slurm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scalable -> salable,
callable, calculable
slurm.src: W: strange-permission slurm-14.11.0.tar.bz2 0640L
sl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1149566
--- Comment #11 from David Brown ---
Here's the updated upstream version rpmlint output.
slurm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scalable -> salable,
callable, calculable
slurm.src: W: strange-permission slurm-14.03.9.tar.bz2 0640L
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1149566
--- Comment #10 from David Brown ---
I figured as much but its been a couple of weeks since I last poked at it.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1149566
Thomas Spura changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||toms...@fedoraproject.org
F
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1149566
David Brown changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #8 from David B
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1149566
David Brown changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Davi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1149566
--- Comment #6 from David Brown ---
Yup further investigation seems like the rpmlint stuff didn't find those lines
but they are there in the init scripts... I'll have to look at the guidelines
for what a SYSV init script is supposed to look li
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1149566
--- Comment #5 from David Brown ---
Here's the epel-6 build of the same spec.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7879588
slurm-slurmdbd.x86_64: E: no-status-entry /etc/rc.d/init.d/slurmdbd
slurm-slurmdbd.x86_64: W: no-reload-
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1149566
--- Comment #4 from David Brown ---
The first bit is a misspelling, it should be libibumad-devel and
libibmad-devel. Those aren't supported in Fedora, not sure why, but they are
supported in RHEL. I was going to look into why that's the case s
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1149566
Haïkel Guémar changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||karlthe...@gmail.com
--- Comment #3 f
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1149566
--- Comment #2 from David Brown ---
I fixed some minor spelling and tab issues.
16 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 9 errors, 23 warnings.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1149566
--- Comment #1 from David Brown ---
Here's the rpmlint output.
slurm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scalable -> salable,
callable, calculable
slurm.src:19: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 19, tab: line 1)
slurm.x86
37 matches
Mail list logo
