https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860012 --- Comment #2 from Andy Mender <andymenderunix@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package builds cleanly in a Fedora 33/Rawhide x86_64 local mock environment, but fails via `fedora-review` (possibly related to recent annobin issues). However, it fails in COPR for Fedora 31 and 32: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/andymenderunix/binaryen/build/1575944/ and in Koji for Fedora 32: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=47867411 Issues are related to the build dir hierarchy. > Summary: Compiler and toolchain infrastructure library for WebAssembly > Name: binaryen > Version: 95 > Release: 1%{?dist} > URL: https://github.com/WebAssembly/binaryen > Source0: %{url}/archive/version_%{version}/%{name}-version_%{version}.tar.gz > # https://github.com/WebAssembly/binaryen/issues/2970 > Patch0: %{name}-95-node-warn.patch > License: ASL 2.0 > # tests fail on big-endian > # https://github.com/WebAssembly/binaryen/issues/2983 > ExcludeArch: ppc64 s390x > BuildRequires: cmake3 > BuildRequires: gcc-c++ > %if %{with check} > BuildRequires: nodejs > %endif - Could you fix the alignment in these blocks? There should be spaces between the tags and the values. - I would add "gcc" as a BuildRequires as well. > %{_includedir}/binaryen-c.h > %{_libdir}/%{name}/libbinaryen.so The header and unversioned SO should probably live in a separate -devel package. Not 100% sure in this case. The review matrix (some items are missing due to issues with building): Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [?]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages Review: Problems in f31 and f32 [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]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Unicode strict", "Public domain", "Apache License 2.0 GNU General Public License (v2)". 1696 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in [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. [?]: 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. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. Review: ExcludeArch included and justified. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 153600 bytes in 5 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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 ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: 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. Review: ExcludeArch defined and justified. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. Review: check whether bare %cmake_install preserves timestamps. [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_use_rpmlint [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 2.4 starting (python version = 3.8.3)... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins INFO: Signal handler active Start: run Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled package manager cache Start: cleaning package manager metadata Finish: cleaning package manager metadata INFO: enabled HW Info plugin Mock Version: 2.4 INFO: Mock Version: 2.4 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/binaryen/binaryen-debuginfo-95-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/binaryen/binaryen-debuginfo-95-1.fc33.i686.rpm /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/binaryen/binaryen-debuginfo-95-1.fc33.aarch64.rpm /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/binaryen/binaryen-debuginfo-95-1.fc33.armv7hl.rpm /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/binaryen/binaryen-debuginfo-95-1.fc33.ppc64le.rpm ERROR: Command failed: # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 33 --setopt=deltarpm=False --allowerasing --disableplugin=local --disableplugin=spacewalk install /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/binaryen/binaryen-debuginfo-95-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/binaryen/binaryen-debuginfo-95-1.fc33.i686.rpm /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/binaryen/binaryen-debuginfo-95-1.fc33.aarch64.rpm /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/binaryen/binaryen-debuginfo-95-1.fc33.armv7hl.rpm /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/binaryen/binaryen-debuginfo-95-1.fc33.ppc64le.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts Rpmlint ------- Checking: binaryen-95-1.fc33.src.rpm binaryen.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) toolchain -> tool chain, tool-chain, touchline binaryen.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US toolchain -> tool chain, tool-chain, touchline binaryen.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codegen -> code gen, code-gen, encode binaryen.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US precomputing -> recomputing, p recomputing, computing binaryen.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wasm -> was, swam, warm binaryen.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US minification -> magnification, indemnification, mummification binaryen.src: W: invalid-url BugURL: https://bugz.fedoraproject.org/binaryen HTTP Error 503: Service Temporarily Unavailable 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/WebAssembly/binaryen/archive/version_95/binaryen-version_95.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d0fc0f7b5ec147a886aea7dc40a2fff7a675e970c8fc38768e1908458b97aaab CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d0fc0f7b5ec147a886aea7dc40a2fff7a675e970c8fc38768e1908458b97aaab Requires -------- Provides -------- -- 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 _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
