https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1957744 Bug ID: 1957744 Summary: New RHEL9 package: debugedit - Tools for debuginfo creation Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 Version: 9.0 Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: distribution Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: pm-rhel@xxxxxxxxxx Reporter: mjw@xxxxxxxxxx QA Contact: release-test-team@xxxxxxxxxx CC: extras-qa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxx, mjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, ngompa13@xxxxxxxxx, package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, pmatilai@xxxxxxxxxx Depends On: 1953633 Target Milestone: beta Classification: Red Hat Pool ID: sst_program_rhel_9 +++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #1953633 +++ Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~mjw/debugedit.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~mjw/debugedit-0.1-3.src.rpm Description: The debugedit project provides programs and scripts for creating debuginfo and source file distributions, collect build-ids and rewrite source paths in DWARF data for debugging, tracing and profiling. Fedora Account System Username: mjw --- Additional comment from Mark Wielaard on 2021-04-26 14:45:12 UTC --- This is part of https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/RPM-4.17 ** Split debugedit to its own project and package --- Additional comment from Neal Gompa on 2021-04-27 01:06:31 UTC --- Taking this review. --- Additional comment from Neal Gompa on 2021-04-27 01:07:52 UTC --- > Source: ftp://sourceware.org/pub/debugedit/%{name}-%{version}.tar.xz > Source1: ftp://sourceware.org/pub/debugedit/%{name}-%{version}.tar.xz.asc Please don't use FTP (HTTPS preferred!) and use numbered sources (Source0, Source1, etc.) since you have multiple sources. --- Additional comment from Neal Gompa on 2021-04-27 01:09:19 UTC --- > %{_bindir}/find-debuginfo.sh Is this intended to be called by users? If not, this should be in %{_libexecdir}. Also, does this *really* need to be suffixed with .sh when it's marked as an executable? --- Additional comment from Mark Wielaard on 2021-04-27 01:17:54 UTC --- (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #3) > > Source: ftp://sourceware.org/pub/debugedit/%{name}-%{version}.tar.xz > > Source1: ftp://sourceware.org/pub/debugedit/%{name}-%{version}.tar.xz.asc > > Please don't use FTP (HTTPS preferred!) and use numbered sources (Source0, > Source1, etc.) since you have multiple sources. Fixed. Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~mjw/debugedit.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~mjw/debugedit-0.1-4.src.rpm --- Additional comment from Mark Wielaard on 2021-04-27 01:18:40 UTC --- (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #4) > > %{_bindir}/find-debuginfo.sh > > Is this intended to be called by users? If not, this should be in > %{_libexecdir}. Also, does this *really* need to be suffixed with .sh when > it's marked as an executable? That is more a question for upstream. If it is changed upstream, I'll update the package too. --- Additional comment from Panu Matilainen on 2021-04-27 09:47:40 UTC --- Yup, %{_bindir} for any of these is a bit of stretch. Might be easiest to just shove them all into /usr/lib/debugedit which would be closer to how they're currently packaged in rpm. --- Additional comment from Neal Gompa on 2021-04-27 11:16:01 UTC --- (In reply to Panu Matilainen from comment #7) > Yup, %{_bindir} for any of these is a bit of stretch. Might be easiest to > just shove them all into /usr/lib/debugedit which would be closer to how > they're currently packaged in rpm. Yes, please install these into %{_libexecdir}/debugedit, then. --- Additional comment from Mark Wielaard on 2021-04-27 16:22:48 UTC --- Note the upstream discussion about the exact installation location of the executables is here: https://sourceware.org/pipermail/debugedit/2021-March/000026.html For now the consensus (if there really is one) seems to be that it doesn't really matter much, but given that the executables have a documented user interface (or should have one) bindir is more appropriate than libexecdir. Could we move this discussion on bin/libexec to the upstream list? It seems the fedora package should simply follow what is decided upstream. Are there any other spec review issues to resolve? --- Additional comment from Neal Gompa on 2021-04-27 22:08:26 UTC --- (In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #9) > Note the upstream discussion about the exact installation location of the > executables is here: > https://sourceware.org/pipermail/debugedit/2021-March/000026.html > For now the consensus (if there really is one) seems to be that it doesn't > really matter much, but given that the executables have a documented user > interface (or should have one) bindir is more appropriate than libexecdir. > > Could we move this discussion on bin/libexec to the upstream list? It seems > the fedora package should simply follow what is decided upstream. > > Are there any other spec review issues to resolve? If you expect *users* to use it, then make man pages and document it and fix the weird ".sh" name for "find-debuginfo". Otherwise, move it to "%{_libexecdir}/debugedit" and deal with making it available in "%{_bindir}" later once you've sorted it out. --- Additional comment from Neal Gompa on 2021-04-27 22:10:06 UTC --- To note, I specifically disagree with the premise that debugedit is documented. It is not. However, *you are upstream*, so I can convey these issues to you directly to resolve them. --- Additional comment from Mark Wielaard on 2021-04-27 22:25:22 UTC --- Hi Neal, (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #10) > If you expect *users* to use it, then make man pages and document it and fix > the weird ".sh" name for "find-debuginfo". Otherwise, move it to > "%{_libexecdir}/debugedit" and deal with making it available in "%{_bindir}" > later once you've sorted it out. (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #11) > To note, I specifically disagree with the premise that debugedit is > documented. It is not. However, *you are upstream*, so I can convey these > issues to you directly to resolve them. I do believe things are documented, just not with man pages, which I agree we should add for the 1.0 release. I understand your reasons for believing libexecdir/debugedit is a better choice than bindir. If you want my personal opinion then I believe bindir is the right place for now. You can try to convince me otherwise, but I am not the only upstream hackers and I think the discussion and decision where to install things should be made upstream. And if it changes upstream then I'll obviously change the spec to follow that. So, does that mean this is the only issue you see with the current spec? Thanks, Mark --- Additional comment from Neal Gompa on 2021-04-28 01:16:35 UTC --- (In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #12) > Hi Neal, > > (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #10) > > If you expect *users* to use it, then make man pages and document it and fix > > the weird ".sh" name for "find-debuginfo". Otherwise, move it to > > "%{_libexecdir}/debugedit" and deal with making it available in "%{_bindir}" > > later once you've sorted it out. > > (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #11) > > To note, I specifically disagree with the premise that debugedit is > > documented. It is not. However, *you are upstream*, so I can convey these > > issues to you directly to resolve them. > > I do believe things are documented, just not with man pages, which I agree > we should add for the 1.0 release. > > I understand your reasons for believing libexecdir/debugedit is a better > choice than bindir. If you want my personal opinion then I believe bindir is > the right place for now. You can try to convince me otherwise, but I am not > the only upstream hackers and I think the discussion and decision where to > install things should be made upstream. And if it changes upstream then I'll > obviously change the spec to follow that. Meh. This is going to be a problem of your own making anyway, so... > > So, does that mean this is the only issue you see with the current spec? No, though it is the severe one. The other issue is this: > Release: 4 You are missing the DistTag as required for Fedora packages: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/DistTag/ --- Additional comment from Neal Gompa on 2021-04-28 01:18:38 UTC --- > # For do_file, gdb_add_index > Requires: gdb Please use a file dependency here, otherwise you'll undo this: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Minimal_GDB_in_buildroot --- Additional comment from Panu Matilainen on 2021-04-28 05:29:35 UTC --- As for the placement, I specifically suggested /usr/lib/debugedit rather than libexec, because it's traditionally more of a gray area between /usr/bin and /usr/libexec where all kinds of hard to define stuff lives. These programs quite certainly are NOT "end user" things, but have documented interfaces nevertheless and can be called standalone by knowledgeable users. Which is what I also said in the upstream discussion, so I'll shut up now :) --- Additional comment from Neal Gompa on 2021-04-28 09:50:17 UTC --- (In reply to Panu Matilainen from comment #15) > As for the placement, I specifically suggested /usr/lib/debugedit rather > than libexec, because it's traditionally more of a gray area between > /usr/bin and /usr/libexec where all kinds of hard to define stuff lives. > These programs quite certainly are NOT "end user" things, but have > documented interfaces nevertheless and can be called standalone by > knowledgeable users. Which is what I also said in the upstream discussion, > so I'll shut up now :) FWIW, that's fine with /usr/libexec too, that's pretty much what that's for. Putting binaries in /usr/libexec rather than /usr/lib makes it a lot easier for people who want to put noexec on the /usr/lib and /usr/lib64 paths (excluding known systemd paths). --- Additional comment from Mark Wielaard on 2021-04-29 12:07:39 UTC --- (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #13) > The other issue is this: > > > Release: 4 > > You are missing the DistTag as required for Fedora packages: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/DistTag/ (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #14) > > # For do_file, gdb_add_index > > Requires: gdb > > Please use a file dependency here, otherwise you'll undo this: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Minimal_GDB_in_buildroot Both fixed in: https://fedorapeople.org/~mjw/debugedit.spec https://fedorapeople.org/~mjw/debugedit-0.1-5.fc33.src.rpm For the minimal gdb I added a Suggests: # For do_file, gdb_add_index # We only need gdb-add-index, so suggest gdb-minimal (full gdb is also ok) Requires: /usr/bin/gdb-add-index Suggests: gdb-minimal --- Additional comment from Neal Gompa on 2021-04-29 15:03:26 UTC --- Doesn't look fixed. --- Additional comment from Neal Gompa on 2021-04-29 15:04:03 UTC --- Are you sure you uploaded the changed files? I see exactly the same thing as before... --- Additional comment from Mark Wielaard on 2021-04-29 15:08:52 UTC --- (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #19) > Are you sure you uploaded the changed files? I see exactly the same thing as > before... Oops. The debugedit-0.1-5.fc33.src.rpm was new, but I forgot to upload the new debugedit.spec. Should now be there https://fedorapeople.org/~mjw/debugedit.spec --- Additional comment from Mark Wielaard on 2021-05-05 23:03:26 UTC --- There is now an upstream 0.2 release, new spec and srpm are here: https://fedorapeople.org/~mjw/debugedit.spec https://fedorapeople.org/~mjw/debugedit-0.2-1.fc33.src.rpm For an 1.0 release there are just some upstream fixes for rpm integration left. But I believe the Fedora spec is ready now. Are there any issues left to resolve before this can be given an fedora-review+? --- Additional comment from Neal Gompa on 2021-05-06 00:10:55 UTC --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [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 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: "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "[generated file]", "GNU General Public License, Version 3 GNU General Public License, Version 2", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention) GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "*No copyright* [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "Expat License [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "GNU Library General Public License v2 or later". 9 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ngompa/1953633-debugedit/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 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: [-]: 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. [-]: 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]: 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]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== 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: debugedit-0.2-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm debugedit-debuginfo-0.2-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm debugedit-debugsource-0.2-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm debugedit-0.2-1.fc35.src.rpm debugedit.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) debuginfo -> debug info, debug-info, debugging debugedit.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US debuginfo -> debug info, debug-info, debugging debugedit.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libiberty -> liberty, liberality debugedit.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libelf -> libel, libels, lib elf debugedit.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libdw -> libido debugedit.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) debuginfo -> debug info, debug-info, debugging debugedit.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US debuginfo -> debug info, debug-info, debugging debugedit.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libiberty -> liberty, liberality debugedit.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US binutils -> bilinguals debugedit.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US elfutils -> futile debugedit.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libelf -> libel, libels, lib elf debugedit.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libdw -> libido 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 12 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: debugedit-debuginfo-0.2-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- debugedit.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) debuginfo -> debug info, debug-info, debugging debugedit.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US debuginfo -> debug info, debug-info, debugging debugedit.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libiberty -> liberty, liberality debugedit.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libelf -> libel, libels, lib elf debugedit.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libdw -> libido 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://sourceware.org/pub/debugedit/0.2/debugedit-0.2.tar.xz.sig : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 169b45ed03c2edce6d550588d26c2a6445486cf4711466fdc85c3b7bddc1289d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 169b45ed03c2edce6d550588d26c2a6445486cf4711466fdc85c3b7bddc1289d https://sourceware.org/pub/debugedit/0.2/debugedit-0.2.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b78258240bb7ec5bbff109495092dcc111aa0393f135f2d2a4b43887ba26a942 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b78258240bb7ec5bbff109495092dcc111aa0393f135f2d2a4b43887ba26a942 Requires -------- debugedit (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/bash /usr/bin/gdb-add-index binutils coreutils dwz elfutils findutils gawk grep libc.so.6()(64bit) libdw.so.1()(64bit) libdw.so.1(ELFUTILS_0.167)(64bit) libelf.so.1()(64bit) libelf.so.1(ELFUTILS_1.0)(64bit) libelf.so.1(ELFUTILS_1.3)(64bit) libelf.so.1(ELFUTILS_1.6)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) sed xz debugedit-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): debugedit-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- debugedit: debugedit debugedit(x86-64) debugedit-debuginfo: debugedit-debuginfo debugedit-debuginfo(x86-64) debuginfo(build-id) debugedit-debugsource: debugedit-debugsource debugedit-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1953633 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: R, Python, fonts, Java, Ocaml, Haskell, SugarActivity, Perl, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH --- Additional comment from Neal Gompa on 2021-05-06 00:11:24 UTC --- This looks as good as it's going to get, so... PACKAGE APPROVED. --- Additional comment from Neal Gompa on 2021-05-06 00:12:46 UTC --- I noticed that this is still an issue in the file list: > %{_bindir}/find-debuginfo.sh > [...] > %{_mandir}/man1/find-debuginfo.sh.1* Please fix this upstream before 1.0 release. --- Additional comment from Mark Wielaard on 2021-05-06 00:34:31 UTC --- (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #24) > I noticed that this is still an issue in the file list: > > > %{_bindir}/find-debuginfo.sh > > [...] > > %{_mandir}/man1/find-debuginfo.sh.1* > > Please fix this upstream before 1.0 release. You mean the .sh extension? Yes, this is upstream bug: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27640 I hope we can simply change it to find-debuginfo, but I want to double check what that means for rpm compatibility first. --- Additional comment from Neal Gompa on 2021-05-06 03:52:20 UTC --- (In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #25) > (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #24) > > I noticed that this is still an issue in the file list: > > > > > %{_bindir}/find-debuginfo.sh > > > [...] > > > %{_mandir}/man1/find-debuginfo.sh.1* > > > > Please fix this upstream before 1.0 release. > > You mean the .sh extension? > Yes, this is upstream bug: > https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27640 > I hope we can simply change it to find-debuginfo, but I want to double check > what that means for rpm compatibility first. It doesn't mean anything for RPM compatibility, since we already macroize its usage and can replace it with any path we want. We'll just adjust RPM to point to new paths and be done with it. --- Additional comment from Jens Petersen on 2021-05-06 07:24:40 UTC --- Well I have to agree I don't feel it makes sense to move these programs from /usr/lib/rpm/ into /usr/bin/ ... --- Additional comment from Jens Petersen on 2021-05-06 07:25:09 UTC --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/debugedit Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1953633 [Bug 1953633] Review Request: debugedit - Tools for debuginfo creation -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
