https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316806 --- Comment #6 from Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@xxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Reviewer Added ===== # Per https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_devel_packages [!] Should probably have a pkgconf .pc file in -devel [!] Subpackages need to require base package JL: The -devel needs to require the exact package version, per above link, or just the main guidelines which mention 'Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}` for subpackages. [!] The manual .so symlinking can probably be avoided by using scons's InstallVesionedLib() call JL: I think some of this falls out once that is fixed to install directly to %buildroot which will further simplify some of the %install linking/moving going on. I'm going to mark the macro usage below ok, but I suspect the build/buildroot/lib hardcodings can/should go away. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "MIT License", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0 and/or MIT License", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* MIT License", "MIT License and/or The Unlicense". 29 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jlinton/2316806-ComputeLibrary/licensecheck.txt JL: I think this probably deserves a apache AND mit clause, especially for the -devel package? INAL.. [X]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/include/CL(opencl- headers), /usr/include/stb(stb_image-devel, stb_hexwave-devel, stb_connected_components-devel, stb_leakcheck-devel, stb_herringbone_wang_tile-devel, stb_sprintf-devel, stb_truetype- devel, stb_easy_font-devel, stb_image_write-devel, stb_image_resize2-devel, stb_vorbis-devel, stb_textedit-devel, stb_rect_pack-devel, stb_tilemap_editor-devel, stb_ds-devel, stb_perlin-devel, stb_voxel_render-devel, stb_divide-devel, stb_image_resize-devel, stb_dxt-devel, stb_c_lexer-devel) JL: I think this is going to force the includes to be installed in ex: include/ArmCompute/* and updated with the pkgconf for utilities utilizing this library? Per: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Conflicts/#_header_name_conflicts [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). ->JL: If the %install section is cleaned up by the package this will remove all the duplicate build/buildroot/lib pathing [-]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. JL: Mixed case is allowed but the guidelines state: "Package names SHOULD be in lower case and use dashes in preference to underscores." and "While case sensitivity is not a mandatory requirement, case SHOULD only be used where necessary." At the same time Fedora should follow other distro's naming conventions. Suse uses "ComputeLibrary", upstream is using "arm_compute", debian is "arm-compute-library". Its that latter case which is closest to the fedora guidelines. So, I think that is probably a reasonable choice too. The full guideslines: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/ [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. JL: This is probably OK since the upstream doesn't support PPC64/S390X but appropriate ExcludeArch defects need to be opened again those architectures and included in .spec comment. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines JL: missing man pages in upstream, there appears to be doxygen pages so it may be useful to generate man pages from that. Its also noteworthy that it seems the default optimization flag is overridden by upstream, but that isn't something I think needs changing since other flags continue to be carried (-mbranch-protection, etc). [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 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 9596 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [X]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). JL: Where did the ocl-icd library go? Should that be required? [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. JL: No apparent upstream signature [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. JL: Package should probably build with `validation_tests=1` and then run `build/buildroot/bin/arm_compute_validation --tests` which will work better once the install sets up the correct soname symlinks. If the buildroot path is fixed too that avoids needing to set a custom LD_LIBRARY_PATH to run them. [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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [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: ComputeLibrary-24.09-1.fc42.aarch64.rpm ComputeLibrary-devel-24.09-1.fc42.aarch64.rpm ComputeLibrary-debuginfo-24.09-1.fc42.aarch64.rpm ComputeLibrary-debugsource-24.09-1.fc42.aarch64.rpm ComputeLibrary-24.09-1.fc42.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/tmphj6nw6we')] checks: 32, packages: 5 ComputeLibrary-devel.aarch64: W: no-documentation ====================================== 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 35 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 8.1 s ======================================= Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: ComputeLibrary-debuginfo-24.09-1.fc42.aarch64.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/tmpey7cv_1l')] checks: 32, packages: 1 ======================================= 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.8 s ======================================= Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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 ComputeLibrary-devel.aarch64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 32 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 6.2 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/arm-software/ComputeLibrary/archive/v24.09/ComputeLibrary-24.09.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 49b8620f21cbbe49e825a131d9eacd548532646289b50e070b83860bd88087fe CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 49b8620f21cbbe49e825a131d9eacd548532646289b50e070b83860bd88087fe Requires -------- ComputeLibrary (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit) libarm_compute.so.42()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.13)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.15)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) ComputeLibrary-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ComputeLibrary(aarch-64) ComputeLibrary-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ComputeLibrary-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- ComputeLibrary: ComputeLibrary ComputeLibrary(aarch-64) libarm_compute.so.42()(64bit) libarm_compute_graph.so.42()(64bit) ComputeLibrary-devel: ComputeLibrary-devel ComputeLibrary-devel(aarch-64) ComputeLibrary-debuginfo: ComputeLibrary-debuginfo ComputeLibrary-debuginfo(aarch-64) debuginfo(build-id) libarm_compute.so.42.0.0-24.09-1.fc42.aarch64.debug()(64bit) libarm_compute_graph.so.42.0.0-24.09-1.fc42.aarch64.debug()(64bit) ComputeLibrary-debugsource: ComputeLibrary-debugsource ComputeLibrary-debugsource(aarch-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2316806 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: PHP, Java, fonts, Python, SugarActivity, R, Perl, Ocaml, Haskell Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2316806 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202316806%23c6 -- _______________________________________________ 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
