[Bug 513896] Review Request: pcp - performance monitoring and collection service

Thu Aug 6 19:48:19 UTC 2009

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=513896

Eric Sandeen <esandeen at redhat.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|esandeen at redhat.com         |jwilson at redhat.com

--- Comment #12 from Eric Sandeen <esandeen at redhat.com>  2009-08-06 15:48:16 EDT ---
Ok, here goes the last informal review and I'll hand off to Jarod.

Koji rawhide scratch build here (successful):
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1587488

rpmlint:

# rpmlint /tmp/pcp-3.0.0-2.fc10.src.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
# rpmlint RPMS/x86_64/pcp*3.0.0-2.fc12.x86_64.rpm 
pcp.x86_64: E: obsolete-on-name
pcp.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/bash_completion.d/pcp
pcp.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/pcp.env
pcp.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/var/lib/pcp/pmdas/trivial/domain.h
pcp.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/var/lib/pcp/pmdas/mounts/domain.h
pcp.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/share/pcp/demos/trace/app2.c
pcp.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/var/lib/pcp/pmdas/weblog/domain.h
pcp.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/var/lib/pcp/pmdas/simple/domain.h
pcp.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/share/pcp/demos/pmclient/pmclient.c
pcp.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /var/lib/pcp/pmdas/mmv/domain.h
pcp.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/var/lib/pcp/pmdas/trivial/trivial.c
pcp.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/var/lib/pcp/pmdas/cisco/domain.h
pcp.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/var/lib/pcp/pmdas/mailq/domain.h
pcp.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/var/lib/pcp/pmdas/linux/domain.h
pcp.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/share/pcp/demos/trace/stub.c
pcp.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/var/lib/pcp/pmdas/sample/domain.h
pcp.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/var/lib/pcp/pmdas/txmon/txrecord.c
pcp.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/var/lib/pcp/pmdas/jstat/domain.h
pcp.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/var/lib/pcp/pmdas/shping/domain.h
pcp.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/var/lib/pcp/pmdas/summary/domain.h
pcp.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/var/lib/pcp/pmdas/process/domain.h
pcp.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/share/pcp/demos/trace/app1.c
pcp.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/var/lib/pcp/pmdas/simple/simple.c
pcp.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/share/pcp/demos/procmemstat/procmemstat.c
pcp.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/var/lib/pcp/pmdas/sendmail/domain.h
pcp.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/var/lib/pcp/pmdas/txmon/domain.h
pcp.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/share/pcp/demos/trace/app3.c
pcp.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/var/lib/pcp/pmdas/trace/domain.h
pcp.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/share/pcp/demos/trace/pmtrace.c
pcp.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /var/lib/pcp/pmdas/txmon/txmon.c
pcp.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/var/lib/pcp/pmdas/lmsensors/domain.h
pcp.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/var/lib/pcp/pmdas/apache/domain.h
pcp.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/var/lib/pcp/pmdas/roomtemp/domain.h
pcp.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/var/lib/pcp/pmdas/lustrecomm/domain.h
pcp.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /var/lib/pcp/pmdas/txmon/txmon.h
pcp.x86_64: W: log-files-without-logrotate /var/log/pcp
pcp.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun rm
pcp.x86_64: E: subsys-not-used /etc/rc.d/init.d/pmproxy
pcp.x86_64: E: subsys-not-used /etc/rc.d/init.d/pmie
pcp.x86_64: E: subsys-not-used /etc/rc.d/init.d/pcp
pcp-devel.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib64/libpcp_gui.so.1
libpcp_gui.so.2
pcp-devel.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib64/libpcp.so.2
libpcp.so.3
pcp-devel.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib64/libpcp_pmda.so.2
libpcp_pmda.so.3
pcp-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libpcp_pmda.so.3
exit at GLIBC_2.2.5
pcp-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 41 warnings.

    * MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package.  See above.
    * MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines. OK
    * MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK
    * MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. 

NEEDSWORK? - 4 errors still above.  subsys-not-used should be easy to fix up, 

A package should not obsolete itself, as it can cause weird errors in tools.
# Prior to v3, the PCP package implicitly "provides" -libs and -devel.
# Strictly, pcp-libs should obsolete the v2.x PCP package, but since
# pcp requires pcp-libs, pcp can just obsolete itself. This is thus
# redundant dependency, but included for clarity.
Obsoletes: pcp < 3.0

I'll let Jarod be the final arbiter on this.

    * MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license. OK
    * MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.

NEEDSWORK?
>From COPYING:
All the libraries in the Performance Co-Pilot (PCP) open source
release are licensed under Version 2.1 of the GNU Lesser General
Public License.

All other components in the PCP open source release are licensed
under Version 2 of the GNU General Public License.

but the specfile says:
License: GPL+ and LGPLv2+

All .c and .h files do say "or any later version" so ideally COPYING should be
fixed to reflect this.

    * MUST: 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 must be included in %doc. OK
    * MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. OK
    * MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. OK

(I might rather see a little more consistency between wildcards & explicit
files, but not a big deal)

    * MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source. OK
    * MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms OK
    * MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires OK
    * MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. OK
    * MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared
library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. OK
    * MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. OK
    * MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings. OK
    * MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK
    * MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). OK
    * MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. OK
    * MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. OK
    * MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. OK
    * MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application. OK
    * MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. OK

Note: "OK" based on pmda .h files "not being header files but rather used for
configuration"

    * MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A
    * MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files N/A
    * MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library
files that end in .so must go in a -devel package. OK
    * MUST: Devel packages must require the base package using a fully
versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}

NEEDSWORK: Requires: pcp-libs = %{version}

For whatever reason I guess we must require pcp, not pcp-libs.

    * MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives OK
    * MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file N/A (but keep in mind for the pcp gui?)
    * MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. OK
    * MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) OK
    * MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. OK

SHOULD Items:
    * SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
N/A (license text is there)
    * SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
N/A (not available and I've never seen it!)
    * SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. OK
    * SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures. OK
    * SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
OK (I started pcp anyway) ;)
    * SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. OK (now!)
    * SHOULD: Subpackages other than devel should require the base package
using a fully versioned dependency.  NO, but it seems ok
    * SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files N/A
    * SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin,
/sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the
file instead of the file itself. OK

Just a few things left here, which I'll leave to Jarod's discretion.

-Eric

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.