https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1901665 --- Comment #1 from Andy Mender <andymenderunix@xxxxxxxxx> --- First, big thanks for bringing this package to Fedora! :) > %check > # Tests are failing for now > %ctest || : Any indication why they are failing? Could you add an extra comment explaining that? > %files > %license LICENSE > %doc CHANGELOG.md README.md USAGE.md > %config %{_sysconfdir}/binfmt.d/box86.conf The config file should be marked as "noreplace", otherwise it will get overwritten on package reinstalls and updates: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_configuration_files > %ifnarch %{ix86} > %{_prefix}/lib/i386-linux-gnu/libgcc_s.so.1 > %{_prefix}/lib/i386-linux-gnu/libstdc++.so.5 > %{_prefix}/lib/i386-linux-gnu/libstdc++.so.6 > %endif If the target is ARM 32-bit, is the if-clause needed and would it still work if you used %{_libdir} (the preferred macro) instead? Also, I think you can catch the libstdc++ SO files with a tailing '*' at the end, instead of the digits. "/usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu" seems like a Debian/Ubuntu libdir. Is there any way to convert it to a Fedora-compatible path or put the packaged SO files into a box86-specific dir in /usr/lib and let cmake link against these? Extra items in the review below: 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]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed Review: Not sure about this. The full gnulib is NOT bundled, just 3 SO files. [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: 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]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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 [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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu Review: As mentioned before, this is not a standard Fedora dir. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu, /etc/binfmt.d Review: Same here. [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. [!]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. Note: No (noreplace) in %config /etc/binfmt.d/box86.conf [-]: 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 3 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]: 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 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]: No %config files under /usr. [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). [x]: 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. Review: Yes, but tests fail. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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 2.6 starting (python version = 3.8.6)... 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: 2.6 INFO: Mock Version: 2.6 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /data/rpmbuild/SPECS/box86/box86-debugsource-0.1.4-1.fc34.armv7hl.rpm /data/rpmbuild/SPECS/box86/box86-debuginfo-0.1.4-1.fc34.armv7hl.rpm /data/rpmbuild/SPECS/box86/box86-0.1.4-1.fc34.armv7hl.rpm ERROR: Command failed: # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 34 --setopt=deltarpm=False --allowerasing --disableplugin=local --disableplugin=spacewalk install /data/rpmbuild/SPECS/box86/box86-debugsource-0.1.4-1.fc34.armv7hl.rpm /data/rpmbuild/SPECS/box86/box86-debuginfo-0.1.4-1.fc34.armv7hl.rpm /data/rpmbuild/SPECS/box86/box86-0.1.4-1.fc34.armv7hl.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts Rpmlint ------- Checking: box86-0.1.4-1.fc34.armv7hl.rpm box86-debuginfo-0.1.4-1.fc34.armv7hl.rpm box86-debugsource-0.1.4-1.fc34.armv7hl.rpm box86-0.1.4-1.fc31.src.rpm box86.armv7hl: W: executable-stack /usr/bin/box86 box86.armv7hl: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/binfmt.d/box86.conf box86.armv7hl: W: no-manual-page-for-binary box86 box86.src:56: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/i386-linux-gnu/libgcc_s.so.1 box86.src:57: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/i386-linux-gnu/libstdc++.so.5 box86.src:58: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/i386-linux-gnu/libstdc++.so.6 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 3 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/ptitSeb/box86/archive/v0.1.4/box86-0.1.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : be4a026310c90ff0171d13bd492fc8a3e7f84e3f494eb2cdf0f96d1566f3a1bc CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : be4a026310c90ff0171d13bd492fc8a3e7f84e3f494eb2cdf0f96d1566f3a1bc Requires -------- box86 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): config(box86) ld-linux-armhf.so.3 libc.so.6 libdl.so.2 libgcc_s.so.1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.5) libm.so.6 libpthread.so.0 librt.so.1 rtld(GNU_HASH) box86-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): box86-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- box86: box86 box86(armv7hl-32) config(box86) box86-debuginfo: box86-debuginfo box86-debuginfo(armv7hl-32) debuginfo(build-id) box86-debugsource: box86-debugsource box86-debugsource(armv7hl-32) -- 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
