[Bug 2247559] Review Request: gemmlowp - Small self-contained low-precision GEMM library

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2247559



--- Comment #15 from Benson Muite <benson_muite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> ---
Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
     Note: Sources not installed
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

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",
     "Apache License 2.0". 44 files have unknown license. Detailed output
     of licensecheck in /home/fedora/2247559-gemmlowp/licensecheck.txt
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: %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.
[ ]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[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 9539 bytes in 1 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.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[ ]: 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]: 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: gemmlowp-0~git20221409.08e4bb3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm
          gemmlowp-devel-0~git20221409.08e4bb3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm
          gemmlowp-doc-0~git20221409.08e4bb3-1.fc40.noarch.rpm
          gemmlowp-debuginfo-0~git20221409.08e4bb3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm
          gemmlowp-debugsource-0~git20221409.08e4bb3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm
          gemmlowp-0~git20221409.08e4bb3-1.fc40.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts
============================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/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
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpz03gl2mh')]
checks: 32, packages: 6

gemmlowp-doc.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot Documentation for GEMM library.
gemmlowp.spec:42: W: setup-not-quiet
gemmlowp-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 31 filtered, 0
badness; has taken 1.0 s 




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: gemmlowp-debuginfo-0~git20221409.08e4bb3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts
============================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/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
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmph49n875p')]
checks: 32, packages: 1

 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0
badness; has taken 0.2 s 





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts
============================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/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: 32, packages: 5

gemmlowp-doc.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot Documentation for GEMM library.
gemmlowp-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 28 filtered, 0
badness; has taken 0.9 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/google/gemmlowp/archive/08e4bb339e34017a0835269d4a37c4ea04d15a69/gemmlowp-08e4bb3.tar.gz
:
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
cc8a22b6f071c3781e6b4b72654c89b1cdc198e72ebadebb17638eac205344c1
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
cc8a22b6f071c3781e6b4b72654c89b1cdc198e72ebadebb17638eac205344c1


Requires
--------
gemmlowp (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    cmake-filesystem(x86-64)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

gemmlowp-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    gemmlowp(x86-64)
    libeight_bit_int_gemm.so.1()(64bit)

gemmlowp-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

gemmlowp-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

gemmlowp-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
gemmlowp:
    cmake(gemmlowp)
    gemmlowp
    gemmlowp(x86-64)
    libeight_bit_int_gemm.so.1()(64bit)

gemmlowp-devel:
    gemmlowp-devel
    gemmlowp-devel(x86-64)

gemmlowp-doc:
    gemmlowp-doc

gemmlowp-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    gemmlowp-debuginfo
    gemmlowp-debuginfo(x86-64)
   
libeight_bit_int_gemm.so.1.0.0-0~git20221409.08e4bb3-1.fc40.x86_64.debug()(64bit)

gemmlowp-debugsource:
    gemmlowp-debugsource
    gemmlowp-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2247559
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++
Disabled plugins: R, Ocaml, Python, fonts, Haskell, Java, PHP, Perl,
SugarActivity
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comments:
a) CMake files should be in the development package. Initial part of soname
should be included
in file listings. License should be in main package and in any package that
does not require
the main package. See
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_listing_shared_library_files
So use something like:

%files
%doc README.md
%license LICENSE
%{_libdir}/libeight_bit_int_gemm.so.0*


%files devel
%{_includedir}/gemmlowp/ 
%{_libdir}/libeight_bit_int_gemm.so
%dir %{_libdir}/cmake/gemmlowp
%{_libdir}/cmake/gemmlowp/gemmlowp-config-noconfig.cmake
%{_libdir}/cmake/gemmlowp/gemmlowp-config.cmake

%files doc
%license LICENSE
%doc doc/


b) Change doc package summary from

Summary:    Documentation for GEMM library.
to

Summary:    Documentation for GEMM library

c) Can the latest commit from November 2023 be used?
d) Please add an explanation in the spec file above the patch explaining what
the patch does. Please
also make a pull request with the patch as it would be good for upstream to add
a soname.
e) The soname should be 0.0.1 not 1.0.0 see
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_downstream_so_name_versioning
f) The patch changes the vectorization flags.  Unless there is a good reason to
do this, perhaps better
to leave them as default.


-- 
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=2247559

Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202247559%23c15
--
_______________________________________________
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




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Conditions]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux