https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884922 --- Comment #6 from Andy Mender <andymenderunix@xxxxxxxxx> --- Unfortunately, it still fails: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=52736388 This part of the build log is revealing: > + cp /builddir/build/BUILD/pylibgamerzilla-0.0.1/_gamerzilla.so /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/pylibgamerzilla-0.0.1-3.fc34.x86_64/usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/ > cp: cannot stat '/builddir/build/BUILD/pylibgamerzilla-0.0.1/_gamerzilla.so': No such file or directory > error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.38Ay73 (%install) > RPM build errors: > Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.38Ay73 (%install) > Child return code was: 1 I did some digging and remembered that in-source cmake builds are no longer the default and that's how this SPEC file is drafted. That's why it works with rpmbuild on Fedora 32, but fails on Fedora 34 in Koji and local mock environments. More info here: - https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/CMake/ - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/CMake_to_do_out-of-source_builds I uploaded an improved SPEC file. Here's a passing Koji build from it: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=52737176 > * Sat Oct 03 2020 Dennis Payne <dulsi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 0.0.1-3 > - Add another missing build requires > > * Sat Oct 03 2020 Dennis Payne <dulsi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 0.0.1-2 > - Add missing build requires Here it's a good idea to note which BuildRequires was added when. Full review for the updated SPEC file: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [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. Review: internal to the package. Ignore warning. Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/pylibgamerzilla/pylibgamerzilla/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package Review: see earlier comment. [?]: 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]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [-]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== 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. [-]: 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. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define __cmake_in_source_build 1 Review: My fault. Will clear this up. [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. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: pylibgamerzilla-0.0.1-4.fc34.x86_64.rpm pylibgamerzilla-debuginfo-0.0.1-4.fc34.x86_64.rpm pylibgamerzilla-debugsource-0.0.1-4.fc34.x86_64.rpm pylibgamerzilla-0.0.1-4.fc32.src.rpm pylibgamerzilla.x86_64: W: no-documentation pylibgamerzilla.src: E: specfile-error warning: bogus date in %changelog: Sat Oct 04 2020 Andy Mender <andymenderunix@xxxxxxxxx> - 0.0.1-4 Review: That's also my fault. Will fix. 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: pylibgamerzilla-debuginfo-0.0.1-4.fc34.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: no installed packages by name pylibgamerzilla-debugsource (none): E: no installed packages by name pylibgamerzilla-debuginfo (none): E: no installed packages by name pylibgamerzilla 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Unversioned so-files -------------------- pylibgamerzilla: /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/_gamerzilla.so Source checksums ---------------- http://www.identicalsoftware.com/gamerzilla/pylibgamerzilla-0.0.1.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ff7329b2362a2e8c4ef6058a69e86b934d3663228be07c7d4a794a6955b8468d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ff7329b2362a2e8c4ef6058a69e86b934d3663228be07c7d4a794a6955b8468d Requires -------- pylibgamerzilla (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgamerzilla.so.0()(64bit) libpython3.9.so.1.0()(64bit) python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH) pylibgamerzilla-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): pylibgamerzilla-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- pylibgamerzilla: pylibgamerzilla pylibgamerzilla(x86-64) pylibgamerzilla-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) pylibgamerzilla-debuginfo pylibgamerzilla-debuginfo(x86-64) pylibgamerzilla-debugsource: pylibgamerzilla-debugsource pylibgamerzilla-debugsource(x86-64) -- 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
