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

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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





--- Comment #14 from Mark Goodwin <mgoodwin at redhat.com>  2009-08-18 04:49:10 EDT ---
Eric Sandeen wrote:
> * MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. 
> NEEDSWORK? - 4 errors still above.  subsys-not-used should be easy to fix up, 

I looked at this and I'd rather not change it.

It turned out not to be that easy to fix. The three PCP services
(pcp, pmie and pmproxy) all manage their own var/run/pcp/pid files.
This pre-dates the standard functionality for managing pid files and
is also multi-platform and also rock solid stable.

> * 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+

The previous version tried to specify the license for the base package
and the two subpackages, which is wrong because -libs has a different
license. So I've now split this so each package specifies it's own license.
Changed the spec so the base package and -devel specify "GPLv2+"
(assuming "GPLv2+" is the best match for "GPLv2.1", as specified in COPYING
since there is no explicit option for "GPLv2.1"), and -libs is "LGPLv2"
(exactly matching what's in COPYING).

> * 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"

yes that's correct, as already discussed.

> * 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.

Nathan and I discussed this and we concluded the only True Dependencies are:
pcp-devel requires pcp-libs
pcp requires pcp-libs

Neither pcp-devel nor pcp-libs actually requires pcp. There is a good
reason we don't want pcp-devel to require pcp - basically it has to do with
the pcp daemon on the build machine getting killed when pcp in the chroot
gets uninstalled, i.e. we want to be able to build packages (such as pcp-gui)
that BuildRequires pcp-devel *without* pcp installed (just pcp-devel and
pcp-libs should be installed).

> * SHOULD: Subpackages other than devel should require the base package
> using a fully versioned dependency.  NO, but it seems ok

Comment: if -libs and the base package require each other, then what's the
point
of splitting out -libs since they can never be installed separately?

So based on the above, I'm leaving the run-time and build-time dependencies
as they strictly need to be. If the final Fedora reviewer and/or sponsor insist
on additional dependencies, then I'll conform, reluctantly :)

Other changes in this round:

- reconciled the open source spec with the current Fedora spec.
- merged with latest 2.9 dev tree
- bumped to 3.0.0-3 and pushed updated spec, .tgz and srpm files to oss.
- pushed my tree to git://oss.sgi.com/markgw/pcp/pcp.git dev

Cheers
-- Mark

-- 
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.