https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2258335 --- Comment #2 from Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== General comments ===== I see that the library appears to use CPUID or similar to enable code requiring ISA extensions conditionally at runtime. Unless I missed something, programs that link this library should be able to run on all supported hosts. ===== Issues ===== - The object files are compiled using the system compiler flags as required by https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_compiler_flags but it appears that linking does not use the necessary flags: ld [lsp-dsp-lib] lsp-dsp-lib.o ld -o /builddir/build/BUILD/lsp-dsp-lib/.build/target/lsp-dsp-lib/lsp-dsp-lib.o -r /builddir/build/BUILD/lsp-dsp-lib/.build/target/lsp-dsp-lib/main/dsp.o /builddir/build/BUILD/lsp-dsp-lib/.build/target/lsp-dsp-lib/main/generic/generic.o /builddir/build/BUILD/lsp-dsp-lib/.build/target/lsp-dsp-lib/main/x86/x86.o /builddir/build/BUILD/lsp-dsp-lib/.build/target/lsp-dsp-lib/main/x86/sse.o /builddir/build/BUILD/lsp-dsp-lib/.build/target/lsp-dsp-lib/main/x86/sse2.o /builddir/build/BUILD/lsp-dsp-lib/.build/target/lsp-dsp-lib/main/x86/sse3.o /builddir/build/BUILD/lsp-dsp-lib/.build/target/lsp-dsp-lib/main/x86/sse4.o /builddir/build/BUILD/lsp-dsp-lib/.build/target/lsp-dsp-lib/main/x86/avx.o /builddir/build/BUILD/lsp-dsp-lib/.build/target/lsp-dsp-lib/main/x86/avx2.o /builddir/build/BUILD/lsp-dsp-lib/.build/target/lsp-dsp-lib/main/x86/avx512.o […] g++ [lsp-dsp-lib] liblsp-dsp-lib-1.0.20.so g++ -o /builddir/build/BUILD/lsp-dsp-lib/.build/target/lsp-dsp-lib/liblsp-dsp-lib-1.0.20.so /builddir/build/BUILD/lsp-dsp-lib/.build/target/lsp-common-lib/lsp-common-lib.o /builddir/build/BUILD/lsp-dsp-lib/.build/target/lsp-test-fw/lsp-test-fw.o /builddir/build/BUILD/lsp-dsp-lib/.build/target/lsp-dsp-lib/lsp-dsp-lib.o -march=x86-64 -m64 -Wl,-z,relro,-z,now -Wl,--gc-sections -shared -fPIC -lpthread You’ll need to figure out how to ensure that the system linker flags are respected as well. This also affects your ability to ensure the SONAME is set correctly; see the next point. - Upstream appears to be attempting some kind of SONAME versioning based on the version number: $ ls -l rpms-unpacked/lsp-dsp-lib-1.0.20-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm/usr/lib64/ total 1016 -rwxr-xr-x. 1 ben ben 1037560 Jan 15 19:00 liblsp-dsp-lib.so.1.0.20 …which could be OK if they are not attempting to guarantee any ABI stability, and expect that every patch release may break ABI. However, they are failing to actually set the SONAME version; rpmlint shows: lsp-dsp-lib.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/liblsp-dsp-lib.so.1.0.20 See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_soname_handling If you know that upstream really does want to set the ABI version with the full library version, then you ensure that -Wl,-soname,liblsp-dsp-lib.so.%{version} is added to the compiler and linker flags. export CFLAGS="${CFLAGS-} -Wl,-soname,liblsp-dsp-lib.so.%{version}" However, if there is any doubt, you should set a SONAME version beginning with "0." in order to avoid conflicts with upstream, and of course you should name the .so.* file accordingly. See the prescriptions in: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_downstream_so_name_versioning Either way, the guidelines say you MUST try to convince upstream to start versioning the shared library properly. In any case, I suggest *not* using %{version} when listing the .so file, because it makes it too easy to forget that a new version is bumping the SONAME version and requires dependent packages to be rebuilt. This isn’t explicitly covered by https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_listing_shared_library_files but I think the same logic applies. ===== 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", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3", "GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later". 22 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/Downloads/review/2258335-lsp-dsp-lib/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. [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 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 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. This is OK because the actual build does use a parallelized macro, %make_build. You *could* replace: make config TEST=1 PREFIX=%{_prefix} LIBDIR=%{_libdir} with %make_build config TEST=1 PREFIX=%{_prefix} LIBDIR=%{_libdir} and it would work well, but it’s not really important since the config target just runs a single command with nothing to parallelize. [-]: 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. (tests pass) [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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=111842296 [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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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: lsp-dsp-lib-1.0.20-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm lsp-dsp-lib-devel-1.0.20-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm lsp-dsp-lib-debuginfo-1.0.20-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm lsp-dsp-lib-debugsource-1.0.20-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm lsp-dsp-lib-1.0.20-1.fc40.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 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/tmpoboipcc1')] checks: 31, packages: 5 lsp-dsp-lib.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/liblsp-dsp-lib.so.1.0.20 lsp-dsp-lib.x86_64: W: no-documentation lsp-dsp-lib-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: lsp-dsp-lib-debuginfo-1.0.20-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 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/tmpl8ppm7t2')] checks: 31, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 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: 4 lsp-dsp-lib.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/liblsp-dsp-lib.so.1.0.20 /lib64/libstdc++.so.6 lsp-dsp-lib.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/liblsp-dsp-lib.so.1.0.20 /lib64/libgcc_s.so.1 lsp-dsp-lib.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/liblsp-dsp-lib.so.1.0.20 lsp-dsp-lib-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation lsp-dsp-lib.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings, 25 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.7 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/lsp-plugins/lsp-dsp-lib/releases/download/1.0.20/lsp-dsp-lib-src-1.0.20.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5000ed31aa6c1dbd3cc923acbb46c66975cf540c99e02711402f3404d869a1a4 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5000ed31aa6c1dbd3cc923acbb46c66975cf540c99e02711402f3404d869a1a4 Requires -------- lsp-dsp-lib (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) lsp-dsp-lib-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config lsp-dsp-lib(x86-64) lsp-dsp-lib-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): lsp-dsp-lib-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- lsp-dsp-lib: liblsp-dsp-lib.so.1.0.20()(64bit) lsp-dsp-lib lsp-dsp-lib(x86-64) lsp-dsp-lib-devel: lsp-dsp-lib-devel lsp-dsp-lib-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(lsp-dsp-lib) lsp-dsp-lib-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) liblsp-dsp-lib.so.1.0.20-1.0.20-1.fc40.x86_64.debug()(64bit) lsp-dsp-lib-debuginfo lsp-dsp-lib-debuginfo(x86-64) lsp-dsp-lib-debugsource: lsp-dsp-lib-debugsource lsp-dsp-lib-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2258335 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: R, Java, SugarActivity, Python, Perl, Haskell, PHP, fonts, Ocaml Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH -- 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=2258335 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202258335%23c2 -- _______________________________________________ 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
