http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19 --- Comment #2 from Neal Becker <ndbecker2(a)gmail.com&gt; 2008-02-03 22:11:23 --- (In reply to comment #1) I have removed much of the cruft. I think all the above issues are addressed. There is just one thing, maybe someone can help me with? For some reason, no debuginfo package is built. I removed %define debug_package %{nil} I also changed 'make install-strip' to 'make install'. From the rpmbuild stdout, I don't see any occurance of the word 'debug', and I don't see any 'strip' or 'install -s'. Anyone have a clue about this? Please try: https://nbecker.dyndns.org/RPM/blcr-0.6.4-3.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19 David Timms <dtimms(a)iinet.net.au&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dtimms(a)iinet.net.au --- Comment #4 from David Timms <dtimms(a)iinet.net.au&gt; 2008-02-29 15:41:58 --- Neil: cursory look at https://nbecker.dyndns.org/RPM/blcr.spec 1. %install rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT noticed missing / inconsistent braces. 2. chrpath -d ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}/%{_bindir}/cr_checkpoint mixed ${X} and %{_Y} should be changed to use one consistent method throughout: 3. No static library builds - without those options the spec would become a lot simpler. {does that apply to this type of package ?} 4. ExclusiveArch: i386 i486 i586 i686 athlon x86_64 ppc64 Leave comment for using exclude arch, ie why ? I am yet to try building it. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19 Orcan Ogetbil <orcanbahri(a)yahoo.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |orcanbahri(a)yahoo.com --- Comment #6 from Orcan Ogetbil <orcanbahri(a)yahoo.com&gt; 2008-11-30 05:05:19 --- I'll review this package but only if you address those "cosmetic" issues, which are required by the Fedora guidelines and here at rpmfusion, we stay consistent with them. Secondly, how is this package supposed to be built? Are the 32bit libraries supposed to be compiled in 64bit systems? Remember that the SPEC file has to be ready to go via 'rpmbuild -ba blcr.spec' in all systems. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19 --- Comment #8 from Orcan Ogetbil <orcanbahri(a)yahoo.com&gt; 2008-12-15 18:03:07 --- The links seem to be broken. Did you just do an update on your server? -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19 --- Comment #10 from Orcan Ogetbil <orcanbahri(a)yahoo.com&gt; 2008-12-16 06:48:50 --- This package surely needs some work. To start with: * mock build fails on my x86_64. This is because you are trying to build and include 32 bit libraries in a 64 bit package, which is not allowed. If one needs 32 bit libraries (s)he can install blcr-libs.i386 in addition to blcr_libs.x86_64 . So you should remove the "libdir32" bits from the SPEC file. * Leave a comment in the SPEC file for why you are using ExclusiveArch. * Try to avoid mixed ${ } %{_ } notation * BR: "perl" and "sed" are not required since they are in the minimum build environment. * Please remove the static library bits from the SPEC file. * rpmlint complains: blcr-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation blcr-testsuite.x86_64: W: no-documentation blcr-testsuite.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/libexec/blcr-testsuite/shellinit For the first two, at least put the license file(s) in those packages. The last one is actually about an empty files. Well it is not empty but when you open it, it says "#empty". Do you think we should include that file? * Patches should be explained and be submitted to upstream if they are not strictly Fedora specific. * The file tests/CountingApp.class is binary and should be removed during %prep * The file README.devel is not and should be packaged. * Buildroot should be one of these: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root * Why do you have: # Ensure we don't build for a i386 %ifarch i386 set +x echo "==========================================================================" echo "ERROR: Cannot build BLCR for a generic i386." >&2 echo "ERROR: Add \"--target `uname -p`\" (or similar) to the rpmbuild command line." >&2 echo "==========================================================================" exit 1 %endif in the SPEC file? Just remove i386 from ExclusiveArch and you should be fine. * Please use %post libs -p /sbin/ldconfig %postun libs -p /sbin/ldconfig Afaik, they'll work more efficient. * We prefer %defattr(-,root,root,-) * Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of Fedora Packaging Guidelines . Avoid inconsistencies such as: %clean rm -rf ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT} %install rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT * Disttag is missing. * The Fedora-specific compilation flag -fstack-protector is not passed to the compiler. For a list of flags that should be passed to the compiler, please do a rpm --eval %optflags * Parallel make must be supported whenever possible. If it is not supported, this should be noted in the SPEC file as a comment. * Shall we package the examples, tests directories? -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19 --- Comment #12 from Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info&gt; 2008-12-17 15:04:41 --- (In reply to comment #11) That will be done automatically by the push scripts if you have a -devel and a -libs subpackage -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19 --- Comment #14 from Orcan Ogetbil <orcanbahri(a)yahoo.com&gt; 2008-12-18 17:40:12 --- (In reply to comment #13) $RPM_BUILD_ROOT or possibly just %{buildroot} . Actually, on a second thought, this particular one is no big deal, you can leave it as is. Just try to stay "as consistent as possible" with the macros in the future. No, I meant: no static libraries at all. Well if there's a definite need for static libraries. They should be built and put in a -static subpackage. Yes, we do. It is a common practice to remove the precompiled binaries in %prep It contains information for people who might want to develop this software. Disttag is: %{?dist} You usually add it to the end of Release tag. For example: Version: 2.5 Release: 3{?dist} Search for -fno-stack-protector in the build log. During the compilation of certain files, that one is passed instead of -fstack-protector . -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19 --- Comment #16 from Neal Becker <ndbecker2(a)gmail.com&gt; 2008-12-22 00:03:21 --- I believe all issues are addressed. According to upstream, building of some sources with -fno-stack-protector is required on some platform. Please see: http://nbecker.dyndns.org:8080/RPM/blcr.spec http://nbecker.dyndns.org:8080/RPM/blcr-0.8.0_b5-2.fc10.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19 --- Comment #18 from Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at&gt; 2008-12-22 10:43:47 --- Can't the bug which requires -fno-stack-protector be fixed?! IMHO this is a blocker, packages should NEVER use -fno-stack-protector, it's an invitation for crackers to exploit any buffer overflows, and the fact that it's needed in the first place strongly points to such buffer overflows being present. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19 --- Comment #20 from Neal Becker <ndbecker2(a)gmail.com&gt; 2008-12-23 00:47:02 --- OK, I believe we have all issues addressed. * Static libs in static package * Patched to eliminate -fno-stack-protector Builds, links, passes test suite on x86_64 (which is the only platform I have to test it on). Note: I did _not_ enable check to run the testsuite, because you have to load the kernel module to run the testsuite. http://nbecker.dyndns.org:8080/RPM/blcr.spec http://nbecker.dyndns.org:8080/RPM/blcr-kmod.spec http://nbecker.dyndns.org:8080/RPM/blcr-0.8.0_b5-4.fc10.src.rpm http://nbecker.dyndns.org:8080/RPM/blcr-kmod-0.8.0_b5-4.fc10.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19 --- Comment #22 from Orcan Ogetbil <oget.fedora(a)gmail.com&gt; 2008-12-23 01:08:26 --- * I keep forgetting to point one more thing out: Non-numeric characters are not desired in the Version field. Please see "mozilla" and "alsa-lib" examples in: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Package_Release Accordingly, your package should probably go like: Version: 0.8.0 Release: 0.1.b5%{?dist} -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19 Orcan Ogetbil <oget.fedora(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|2 |4 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #24 from Orcan Ogetbil <oget.fedora(a)gmail.com&gt; 2008-12-23 03:35:23 --- (In reply to comment #23) * Yes. Actually, that's the problem. Read again, I'm saying, - the README.devel file is not packaged - the README.devel file should be packaged. Sorry if I brought confusion. * Other than these, it would be nice if you explain in the SPEC file what each patch does (e.g. Patch1) Please do these little changes before you commit. I think the package is good to go now. ---------------------------------------------------------- This package (blcr) is APPROVED by oget for rpmfusion-free ---------------------------------------------------------- For the kmod package, I believe Thorsten will do the review. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19 Neal Becker <ndbecker2(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |33 --- Comment #26 from Neal Becker <ndbecker2(a)gmail.com&gt; 2008-12-23 18:03:11 --- Package CVS request ====================== Package Name: blcr Short Description: Berkeley Lab Checkpoint/Restart for Linux (BLCR) This package implements system-level checkpointing of scientific applications in a manner suitable for implementing preemption, migration and fault recovery by a batch scheduler. Owners: ndbecker2(a)gmail.com Branches: F9, F10 InitialCC: ---------------------- License tag: free -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19 --- Comment #28 from Neal Becker <ndbecker2(a)gmail.com&gt; 2009-01-06 13:29:19 --- What is needed, I believe, is a way to forbid builds on i386, but allow 486+. In addition, ppc, ppc64, and arm are supported. Could someone suggest a better way to achieve this? -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19 --- Comment #30 from Orcan Ogetbil <oget.fedora(a)gmail.com&gt; 2009-01-06 23:28:18 --- Not directly related to this bug, but can someone give a brief explanation what i486, i586 are for? Is i686 good for everything or is it good for Pentium X and above only? If so, X=? and what is the athlon correspondence? -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19 --- Comment #32 from Neal Becker <ndbecker2(a)gmail.com&gt; 2009-01-17 00:30:50 --- Updated sources: http://nbecker.dyndns.org:8080/RPM/blcr.spec http://nbecker.dyndns.org:8080/RPM/blcr-0.8.0-1.fc10.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19 Neal Becker <ndbecker2(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED Resolution| |FIXED -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.