Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 1366839 - Review Request: openhft-affinity - Java Thread Affinity library
Summary: Review Request: openhft-affinity - Java Thread Affinity library
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Ben Rosser
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: F-ExcludeArch-ARM 1353904 1353905 1366843
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2016-08-13 10:36 UTC by gil cattaneo
Modified: 2016-09-06 18:21 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2016-09-06 18:21:54 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
rosser.bjr: fedora-review+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description gil cattaneo 2016-08-13 10:36:02 UTC 
Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/openhft-affinity.spec
SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/openhft-affinity-3.0.6-1.fc24.src.rpm
Description:
The library will read your /proc/cpuinfo if you have one or
provide one and it will determine your CPU layout.
If you don't have one it will assume every CPU is on one Socket.

The library looks for isolated CPUs determined by looking at the
CPUs you are not running on by default. i.e. if you have 16 CPUs
but 8 of them are not available for general use (as determined
by the affinity of the process on startup) it will start assigning to 
those CPUs.
Fedora Account System Username: gil

Spring Framework 4.x (indirect) dependency


Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15242099
Comment 1 gil cattaneo 2016-08-25 12:41:26 UTC 
Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/openhft-affinity.spec
SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/openhft-affinity-3.0.6-1.fc24.src.rpm

- disable JNI library on ARM arch
  https://github.com/OpenHFT/Java-Thread-Affinity/issues/32

Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15376216
Comment 2 Ben Rosser 2016-08-27 16:47:44 UTC 
Taken.
Comment 3 Ben Rosser 2016-08-30 01:30:23 UTC 
Package Review
==============

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

Issues:
=======
- There are some Apache 2.0 licensed source files; the license should be appended accordingly if they're actually being built:

Java-Thread-Affinity-affinity-3.0.6/affinity/src/main/c/net_openhft_ticker_impl_JNIClock.cpp
Java-Thread-Affinity-affinity-3.0.6/affinity/src/main/c/software_chronicle_enterprise_internals_impl_NativeAffinity.cpp
Java-Thread-Affinity-affinity-3.0.6/affinity/src/main/c/software_chronicle_enterprise_internals_impl_NativeAffinity_MacOSX.c
Java-Thread-Affinity-affinity-3.0.6/affinity/src/main/java/net/openhft/affinity/MicroJitterSampler.java

- The directory %{_libdir}/openhft-affinity is unowned; it should be owned by the main package.

===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
     Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
     attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

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: "Apache (v2.0)", "LGPL", "Unknown or generated". 5 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/bjr/Programming/fedora/reviews/1366839-openhft-
     affinity/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/openhft-affinity
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/openhft-affinity
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: 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.
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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
     provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
[x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
     Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It
     is pulled in by maven-local
[x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
     subpackage
[x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils
[x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)

Maven:
[x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including metadata) even
     when building with ant
[x]: POM files have correct Maven mapping
[x]: Maven packages should use new style packaging
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[x]: Packages DO NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-
     utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
[x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x]: Packages use .mfiles file list instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
     file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in openhft-
     affinity-javadoc , openhft-affinity-test , openhft-affinity-debuginfo
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.

Note: not a %check section but the tests get ran by maven and pass.

[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

Java:
[x]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI
     Note: openhft-affinity subpackage is not noarch. Please verify
     manually
[x]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.)

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: openhft-affinity-3.0.6-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm
          openhft-affinity-javadoc-3.0.6-1.fc26.noarch.rpm
          openhft-affinity-test-3.0.6-1.fc26.noarch.rpm
          openhft-affinity-debuginfo-3.0.6-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm
          openhft-affinity-3.0.6-1.fc26.src.rpm
openhft-affinity.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US proc -> crop, prov, pro
openhft-affinity.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cpuinfo -> info
openhft-affinity.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US startup -> start up, start-up, upstart
openhft-affinity-test.noarch: W: no-documentation
openhft-affinity.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US proc -> crop, prov, pro
openhft-affinity.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cpuinfo -> info
openhft-affinity.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US startup -> start up, start-up, upstart
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: openhft-affinity-debuginfo-3.0.6-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
openhft-affinity.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US proc -> crop, prov, pro
openhft-affinity.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cpuinfo -> info
openhft-affinity.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US startup -> start up, start-up, upstart
openhft-affinity-test.noarch: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.



Requires
--------
openhft-affinity (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    java-headless
    javapackages-tools
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libjvm.so()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    librt.so.1()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    mvn(net.java.dev.jna:jna)
    mvn(net.java.dev.jna:jna-platform)
    mvn(org.jetbrains:annotations)
    mvn(org.slf4j:slf4j-api)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

openhft-affinity-test (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    java-headless
    javapackages-tools
    mvn(com.sun:tools)
    mvn(net.openhft:affinity)

openhft-affinity-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    javapackages-tools

openhft-affinity-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
openhft-affinity:
    libCEInternals.so()(64bit)
    mvn(net.openhft:affinity)
    mvn(net.openhft:affinity:pom:)
    openhft-affinity
    openhft-affinity(x86-64)
    osgi(net.openhft.affinity)

openhft-affinity-test:
    mvn(net.openhft:affinity-test)
    mvn(net.openhft:affinity-test:pom:)
    openhft-affinity-test
    osgi(net.openhft.affinity-test)

openhft-affinity-javadoc:
    openhft-affinity-javadoc

openhft-affinity-debuginfo:
    openhft-affinity-debuginfo
    openhft-affinity-debuginfo(x86-64)



Unversioned so-files
--------------------
openhft-affinity: /usr/lib64/openhft-affinity/libCEInternals.so

Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/OpenHFT/Java-Thread-Affinity/archive/affinity-3.0.6.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 27157c3242df8c4afa52a1e3f7dcd84e76398df2a9b3ec00a133dbc49b7aca56
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 27157c3242df8c4afa52a1e3f7dcd84e76398df2a9b3ec00a133dbc49b7aca56


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1366839
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Java, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Python, SugarActivity, fonts, Haskell, Ocaml, Perl, R, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
Comment 4 gil cattaneo 2016-08-30 01:41:26 UTC 
(In reply to Ben Rosser from comment #3)

> Issues:
> =======
> - There are some Apache 2.0 licensed source files; the license should be
> appended accordingly if they're actually being built:
> 
> Java-Thread-Affinity-affinity-3.0.6/affinity/src/main/c/
> net_openhft_ticker_impl_JNIClock.cpp
> Java-Thread-Affinity-affinity-3.0.6/affinity/src/main/c/
> software_chronicle_enterprise_internals_impl_NativeAffinity.cpp
> Java-Thread-Affinity-affinity-3.0.6/affinity/src/main/c/
> software_chronicle_enterprise_internals_impl_NativeAffinity_MacOSX.c
> Java-Thread-Affinity-affinity-3.0.6/affinity/src/main/java/net/openhft/
> affinity/MicroJitterSampler.java

Done

> - The directory %{_libdir}/openhft-affinity is unowned; it should be owned
> by the main package.

Done


Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/openhft-affinity.spec
SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/openhft-affinity-3.0.6-2.fc24.src.rpm
Comment 5 gil cattaneo 2016-08-31 12:50:05 UTC 
@Ben, need something else to finish the review?
Comment 6 Ben Rosser 2016-09-01 04:01:20 UTC 
Nope, sorry for the delay. Package APPROVED.

Package Review
==============

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]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
     Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
     attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

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: "Apache (v2.0)", "LGPL", "Unknown or generated". 5 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/bjr/Programming/fedora/reviews/1366839-openhft-
     affinity/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: 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.
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[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]: 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
     provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
[x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
     Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It
     is pulled in by maven-local
[x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
     subpackage
[x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils
[x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)

Maven:
[x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including metadata) even
     when building with ant
[x]: POM files have correct Maven mapping
[x]: Maven packages should use new style packaging
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[x]: Packages DO NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-
     utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
[x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x]: Packages use .mfiles file list instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
     file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in openhft-
     affinity-javadoc , openhft-affinity-test , openhft-affinity-debuginfo
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

Java:
[x]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI
     Note: openhft-affinity subpackage is not noarch. Please verify
     manually
[x]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.)

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: openhft-affinity-3.0.6-2.fc26.x86_64.rpm
          openhft-affinity-javadoc-3.0.6-2.fc26.noarch.rpm
          openhft-affinity-test-3.0.6-2.fc26.noarch.rpm
          openhft-affinity-debuginfo-3.0.6-2.fc26.x86_64.rpm
          openhft-affinity-3.0.6-2.fc26.src.rpm
openhft-affinity.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US proc -> crop, prov, pro
openhft-affinity.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cpuinfo -> info
openhft-affinity.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US startup -> start up, start-up, upstart
openhft-affinity-test.noarch: W: no-documentation
openhft-affinity.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US proc -> crop, prov, pro
openhft-affinity.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cpuinfo -> info
openhft-affinity.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US startup -> start up, start-up, upstart
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: openhft-affinity-debuginfo-3.0.6-2.fc26.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
openhft-affinity.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US proc -> crop, prov, pro
openhft-affinity.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cpuinfo -> info
openhft-affinity.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US startup -> start up, start-up, upstart
openhft-affinity-test.noarch: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.



Requires
--------
openhft-affinity (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    java-headless
    javapackages-tools
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libjvm.so()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    librt.so.1()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    mvn(net.java.dev.jna:jna)
    mvn(net.java.dev.jna:jna-platform)
    mvn(org.jetbrains:annotations)
    mvn(org.slf4j:slf4j-api)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

openhft-affinity-test (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    java-headless
    javapackages-tools
    mvn(com.sun:tools)
    mvn(net.openhft:affinity)

openhft-affinity-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    javapackages-tools

openhft-affinity-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
openhft-affinity:
    libCEInternals.so()(64bit)
    mvn(net.openhft:affinity)
    mvn(net.openhft:affinity:pom:)
    openhft-affinity
    openhft-affinity(x86-64)
    osgi(net.openhft.affinity)

openhft-affinity-test:
    mvn(net.openhft:affinity-test)
    mvn(net.openhft:affinity-test:pom:)
    openhft-affinity-test
    osgi(net.openhft.affinity-test)

openhft-affinity-javadoc:
    openhft-affinity-javadoc

openhft-affinity-debuginfo:
    openhft-affinity-debuginfo
    openhft-affinity-debuginfo(x86-64)



Unversioned so-files
--------------------
openhft-affinity: /usr/lib64/openhft-affinity/libCEInternals.so

Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/OpenHFT/Java-Thread-Affinity/archive/affinity-3.0.6.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 27157c3242df8c4afa52a1e3f7dcd84e76398df2a9b3ec00a133dbc49b7aca56
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 27157c3242df8c4afa52a1e3f7dcd84e76398df2a9b3ec00a133dbc49b7aca56


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1366839
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Java, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Python, SugarActivity, fonts, Haskell, Ocaml, Perl, R, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
Comment 7 gil cattaneo 2016-09-01 10:44:26 UTC 
Thanks for the review!

create new SCM request/s:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/requests/7604
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/requests/7605
Comment 8 Gwyn Ciesla 2016-09-01 12:09:53 UTC 
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/openhft-affinity
Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2016-09-01 19:19:51 UTC 
openhft-affinity-3.0.6-2.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-cf544dace8
Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2016-09-03 03:54:24 UTC 
openhft-affinity-3.0.6-2.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-cf544dace8
Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2016-09-06 18:21:52 UTC 
openhft-affinity-3.0.6-2.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.