https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2124479 --- Comment #19 from Benson Muite <benson_muite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0". 390 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/llvm-bolt/2124479-llvm-bolt/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 [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. [?]: 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. [-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [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]: 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 ===== 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [-]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [?]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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. Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 4 llvm-bolt.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/llvm-bolt llvm-bolt.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary llvm-bolt llvm-bolt.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary llvm-boltdiff llvm-bolt.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary perf2bolt llvm-bolt.x86_64: W: no-documentation llvm-bolt-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license Apache-2.0-WITH-LLVM-exception llvm-bolt-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-license Apache-2.0-WITH-LLVM-exception llvm-bolt.x86_64: W: invalid-license Apache-2.0-WITH-LLVM-exception llvm-bolt-doc.noarch: W: invalid-license Apache-2.0-WITH-LLVM-exception 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 4.5 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/releases/download/llvmorg-15.0.0/llvm-project-15.0.0.src.tar.xz.sig : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 593ee43238f847f66a6c9e3d2440868d194af8292c99a7e906e59a32691d2048 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 593ee43238f847f66a6c9e3d2440868d194af8292c99a7e906e59a32691d2048 https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/releases/download/llvmorg-15.0.0/llvm-project-15.0.0.src.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : caaf8100365b6ebafc39fea803e902ca3ff38b4d5327b9927097808d32964db7 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : caaf8100365b6ebafc39fea803e902ca3ff38b4d5327b9927097808d32964db7 Requires -------- llvm-bolt (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.11)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.13)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libtinfo.so.6()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) libz.so.1(ZLIB_1.2.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) llvm-bolt-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): llvm-bolt llvm-bolt-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): llvm-bolt-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- llvm-bolt: llvm-bolt llvm-bolt(x86-64) llvm-bolt-doc: llvm-bolt-doc llvm-bolt-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) llvm-bolt-debuginfo llvm-bolt-debuginfo(x86-64) llvm-bolt-debugsource: llvm-bolt-debugsource llvm-bolt-debugsource(x86-64) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/benson/Projects/FedoraPackaging/reviews/llvm-bolt/2124479-llvm-bolt/srpm/llvm-bolt.spec 2022-10-24 06:22:33.920460480 +0300 +++ /home/benson/Projects/FedoraPackaging/reviews/llvm-bolt/2124479-llvm-bolt/srpm-unpacked/llvm-bolt.spec 2022-10-04 12:40:02.000000000 +0300 @@ -37,5 +37,4 @@ BuildRequires: llvm-test = %{version} BuildRequires: python3-lit -BuildRequires: python3-psutil BuildRequires: clang BuildRequires: lld @@ -47,5 +46,5 @@ ExcludeArch: s390x ppc64le i686 -# As hinted by bolt documentation +# As hinted bu bolt documentation Recommends: gperftools-devel @@ -56,4 +55,18 @@ execution profile gathered by sampling profiler, such as Linux `perf` tool. +%package static +Summary: BOLT static files +Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} + +%description static +BOLT static files. + +%package devel +Summary: BOLT development files +Requires: %{name}-static%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} + +%description devel +BOLT development files. + %package doc Summary: Documentation for BOLT @@ -169,9 +182,9 @@ -DLLVM_INCLUDE_TESTS:BOOL=ON \ -DBUILD_SHARED_LIBS:BOOL=OFF \ - -DLLVM_LINK_LLVM_DYLIB:BOOL=OFF \ + -DLLVM_LINK_LLVM_DYLIB:BOOL=OFF \ %if 0%{?__isa_bits} == 64 - -DLLVM_LIBDIR_SUFFIX=64 \ + -DLLVM_LIBDIR_SUFFIX=64 \ %else - -DLLVM_LIBDIR_SUFFIX= \ + -DLLVM_LIBDIR_SUFFIX= \ %endif -DBOLT_INCLUDE_TESTS:BOOL=ON \ @@ -180,17 +193,12 @@ -DLLVM_EXTERNAL_LIT=%{_bindir}/lit -# Set LD_LIBRARY_PATH now because we skip rpath generation and the build uses -# some just built libraries. export LD_LIBRARY_PATH=%{_builddir}/%{bolt_srcdir}/bolt/%{_vpath_builddir}/%{_lib} -# Set DESTDIR now because bolt sneaks in an install step in its build step. export DESTDIR=%{buildroot} %cmake_build + %install %cmake_install -# We don't ship libLLVMBOLT*.a -rm -f %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/libLLVMBOLT*.a - # There currently is not support upstream for building html doc from BOLT install -d %{buildroot}%{_pkgdocdir} @@ -224,4 +232,11 @@ %cmake_build --target check-bolt +#%ifarch x86_64 +#for rt in libbolt_rt_instr libbolt_rt_hugify libbolt_rt_instr_osx +#do +# rm %{buildroot}/usr/lib/${rt}.a +#done +#%endif + %files %license LICENSE.TXT @@ -230,4 +245,5 @@ %{_bindir}/perf2bolt +%files static %ifarch x86_64 %{_libdir}/libbolt_rt_hugify.a @@ -235,5 +251,14 @@ %{_libdir}/libbolt_rt_instr_osx.a %endif +%{_libdir}/libLLVMBOLTCore.a +%{_libdir}/libLLVMBOLTPasses.a +%{_libdir}/libLLVMBOLTProfile.a +%{_libdir}/libLLVMBOLTRewrite.a +%{_libdir}/libLLVMBOLTRuntimeLibs.a +%{_libdir}/libLLVMBOLTTargetAArch64.a +%{_libdir}/libLLVMBOLTTargetX86.a +%{_libdir}/libLLVMBOLTUtils.a +%files devel %files doc Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2124479 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: PHP, Ruby, Haskell, Perl, Java, R, SugarActivity, fonts, Python, Ocaml Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH Comments: a) Please ensure the spec file that is uploaded is the same as the one in the SRPM which seems ok b) May wish to comment in the spec file what the patches standalone, test and lib64 do, the names are not very descriptive, but this is not essential c) The build log has the warning: lit: /builddir/build/BUILD/llvm-project-15.0.0.src/bolt/test/lit.cfg.py:50: warning: Setting a timeout per test not supported. Requires the Python psutil module but it could not be found. Try installing it via pip or via your operating system's package manager. Some tests will be skipped. The spec file does not contain: BuildRequires: python3-psutil d) Still testing, but with the above expect it should be ok. -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2124479 _______________________________________________ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
