[Bug 1470842] Review Request: bazel - A fast, scalable, multi-language and extensible build system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1470842

Scott K Logan  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||log...@cottsay.net



--- Comment #6 from Scott K Logan  ---
I know this is a long-closed ticket, but for those who want Bazel in Fedora and
stumble upon this, I thought I'd share some findings.

I did a quick-and-dirty survey to see what it would take to bootstrap Bazel for
Fedora 32, and I couldn't find the following JARs:
- auto-service-annotations.jar
- auto-value-annotations.jar
- checker-qual.jar
- com.android.tools.common.jar
- com.android.tools.layoutlib.layoutlib-api.jar
- com.android.tools.repository.jar
- commons-collections3.jar
- commons-pool2.jar
- error-prone-annotations.jar
- error-prone-type-annotations.jar
- escapevelocity.jar
- flogger.jar
- flogger-system-backend.jar
- geronimo-annotation-1.3-spec.jar
- google-api-client-jackson2.jar
- google-api-client.jar
- google-auth-library-credentials.jar
- google-auth-library-oauth2-http.jar
- google-extensions.jar
- google-http-client-jackson2.jar
- google-http-client.jar
- grpc-api.jar
- grpc-auth.jar
- grpc-context.jar
- grpc-core.jar
- grpc-netty.jar
- grpc-protobuf.jar
- grpc-protobuf-lite.jar
- grpc-stub.jar
- java-allocation-instrumenter.jar
- java-diff-utils.jar
- jsr305.jar
- netty-transport-native-epoll.jar
- netty-transport-native-kqueue.jar
- netty-transport-native-unix-common.jar
- netty-transport-sctp.jar
- opencensus-api.jar
- opencensus-contrib-grpc-metrics.jar
- perfmark-api.jar
- protobuf-util.jar
- tomcat9-annotations-api.jar

On top of those missing, there are 17 packages currently in Fedora which
provide some of the required JARs.

Getting all of the missing JARs packaged would be a lot of work, and this
package would end up with a pretty hefty number of dependencies. Given the
number of dependencies and the rate at which Bazel is tagging releases, I don't
think that this would be a trivial package to maintain.


-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1470842] Review Request: bazel - A fast, scalable, multi-language and extensible build system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1470842

Seth Jennings  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
  Flags|needinfo?(sjenning@redhat.c |
   |om) |
Last Closed||2019-10-31 16:26:16



--- Comment #5 from Seth Jennings  ---
I don't have time to push this forward.  Anyone is welcome to reopen and
self-assign to continue.  COPR is good in the meantime.

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1470842] Review Request: bazel - A fast, scalable, multi-language and extensible build system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1470842

Zamir SUN  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||sjenn...@redhat.com
  Flags||needinfo?(sjenning@redhat.c
   ||om)



--- Comment #4 from Zamir SUN  ---
Hi Seth,

Recently packaging guidelines changed a bit. Please see if you can request for
an opt-out.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Bundling_and_Duplication_of_system_libraries

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1470842] Review Request: bazel - A fast, scalable, multi-language and extensible build system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1470842

Ed Marshall  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||e...@logic.net



--- Comment #3 from Ed Marshall  ---
I came over to bugzilla to see if Bazel had a review request for it yet, since
I'd noticed that Vincent Batts has a COPR for Bazel (they're also packaging
Envoy as a COPR). Anyway, figured I'd mention it in case you were interested in
collaborating with them?

https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/vbatts/bazel/

It looks like he did the same thing as you, though (using the -dist source with
pre-built jars, rather than unrolling each dependent build tool), fwiw.

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1470842] Review Request: bazel - A fast, scalable, multi-language and extensible build system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1470842



--- Comment #2 from Seth Jennings  ---
Thanks for the review!

The release tarballs (as opposed to the -dist.zip sources) have the correct
permissions on the files and don't include the bootstrap binaries.

The two binaries needed are protoc, provided by the protobuf-compiler package,
and a protoc-gen-grpc-java, which current isn't packaged.  It can be compile
from https://github.com/grpc/grpc-java.  However, that repo also has a
recommended "build from source" procedure that includes prebundled binaries.

Still trying to find a clean way to do this.

-- 
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1470842] Review Request: bazel - A fast, scalable, multi-language and extensible build system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1470842



--- Comment #1 from Zamir SUN  ---
Hi,

I think you need major fix for this package. IMO we do not allow binary file in
package but there are many JAR files in source.
Besides, if you want to use ./compile.sh to build, you need to write clear
justification why in the SPEC file.
Some files is with bad permission (555 while it is not actually for execute).
See rpmlint details below.



This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are
also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla:
- Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such
  a list, create one.
- Add your own remarks to the template checks.
- Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not
  listed by fedora-review.
- Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this
  case you could also file a bug against fedora-review
- Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines
  in what you paste.
- Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint
  ones are mandatory, though)
- Remove this text



Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- Permissions on files are set properly.
  Note: See rpmlint output
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions
- All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
  are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
  Note: These BR are not needed: gcc unzip gcc-c++
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2


= MUST items =

C/C++:
[ ]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
 Note: Sources not installed
[ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[ ]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[ ]: 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: "Apache (v2.0)", "Apache (v2.0) NTP", "Unknown or generated".
 364 files have unknown license.
[!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
 Note: Especially check following dirs for bundled code: third_party
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[!]: 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
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 81920 bytes in 5 files.
[ ]: 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]: 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