https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860012 --- Comment #3 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Andy Mender from comment #2) > 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. I'll fix any build issues on 32 and older in the respective branches. > > 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. There are spaces after each semi-colon. I'm not sure what needs fixing here. > - I would add "gcc" as a BuildRequires as well. gcc-c++ depends on gcc. > > %{_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. This is a compiler and the unversioned SO is an internal shared library, so it doesn't make sense to split it out as it's not usable on its own (unlike libgcc). Arguably, I should filter out that SO from both Provides: and Requires:. > 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/ The x86_64 RPM from the scratch build I pasted above installs fine. Why are you trying to install binary RPMs for all arches at the same time on a single machine? I cannot work. [...] > ===== 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. It actually doesn't. See below. [...] > > ===== EXTRA items ===== > > Generic: > [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. I ran rpmlint manually and it caught binaries having the wrong RPATH. I'll fix that. Thanks for the review! -- 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
