[Bug 1819148] Review Request: act - Automatic Component Toolkit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1819148 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2020-6ecb9adca3 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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 1819148] Review Request: act - Automatic Component Toolkit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1819148 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-05-15 02:35:28 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-6e5fe0249d has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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 1819148] Review Request: act - Automatic Component Toolkit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1819148 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-6e5fe0249d has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-6e5fe0249d \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-6e5fe0249d See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- 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 1819148] Review Request: act - Automatic Component Toolkit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1819148 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2020-6ecb9adca3 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-6ecb9adca3 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- 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 1819148] Review Request: act - Automatic Component Toolkit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1819148 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-6e5fe0249d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-6e5fe0249d -- 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 1819148] Review Request: act - Automatic Component Toolkit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1819148 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2020-6ecb9adca3 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-6ecb9adca3 -- 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 1819148] Review Request: act - Automatic Component Toolkit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1819148 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2020-6ecb9adca3 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-6ecb9adca3 -- 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 1819148] Review Request: act - Automatic Component Toolkit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1819148 --- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/act -- 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 1819148] Review Request: act - Automatic Component Toolkit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1819148
Dennis Gilmore changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dgilm...@redhat.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|dgilm...@redhat.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Dennis Gilmore ---
Approved
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[ ]: 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:
[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.
[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.
[x]: 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.
[ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: 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 20480 bytes in 1 files.
[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]: 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.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[ ]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]:
[Bug 1819148] Review Request: act - Automatic Component Toolkit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1819148 --- Comment #4 from Miro Hrončok --- Try adding: -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -- 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 1819148] Review Request: act - Automatic Component Toolkit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1819148 --- Comment #3 from Weiping --- (In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #2) > I can build the package just fine, see the copr builds. How are you using > fedora-review? fedora-review -u https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1819148 See https://linux.die.net/man/1/fedora-review for more detail. It seems a issue related kernel or complier, I try to enlarge limitation of lock memory, but doesn't work. -- 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 1819148] Review Request: act - Automatic Component Toolkit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1819148
--- Comment #2 from Miro Hrončok ---
(In reply to Weiping from comment #1)
> Hi,
>
> this is an informal review:
Hello Weiping. Thanks for doing this.
> > Name: act
> > %global lname AutomaticComponentToolkit
> It's not recommended to use lname, please follow name guideline:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/
I don't understand. There is not a single mention of lname in that guidelines.
Nor it is said that it is not recommended.
The simple fact that it is not mentioned doesn't mean we should not do this.
> > %{?gometa}
> > %{?!gometa:BuildRequires: /usr/bin/go}
> Packages MUST have BuildRequires: go-rpm-macros.
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Golang/
> #_dependencies
On Fedora, %gometa adds that.
On EPEL 7, there is no go-rpm-macros :(
> > mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_bindir}
> > install -m 0755 -vp act %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/
>
> Better to use these macors:
> install -m 0755 -vd %{buildroot}%{_bindir}
> install -m 0755 -vp %{gobuilddir}/bin/* %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Golang/
> #_binary_package_installation
I found that overcomplicated and I don't have %{gobuilddir} on EPEL 7.
> Please add
> %global golicenses LICENSE.md
> %global godocs README.md
>
>
>
> There is an example, for simple binary package:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Golang/
> #_simple_binary_package
It is, but since I don't have the devel subpackage, I think this would only
make the spec more complicated.
> fedora-review failed to build this package:
> + GO111MODULE=off
> + go build -buildmode pie -compiler gc '-tags=rpm_crashtraceback ' -ldflags
> ' -B 0x4b072daa5c63e7865a65639d9d94578a8d195116 -extldflags '\''-Wl,-z,relro
> -Wl,--as-needed -Wl,-z,now -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-ld
> '\''' -a -v -x -o act Source/actutils.go Source/automaticcomponenttoolkit.go
> Source/buildbindingccpp.go Source/buildbindingcsharp.go
> Source/buildbindinggo.go Source/buildbindingnode.go
> Source/buildbindingpascal.go Source/buildbindingpython.go
> Source/buildimplementationcpp.go Source/buildimplementationpascal.go
> Source/componentdefinition.go Source/componentdiff.go Source/languagec.go
> Source/languagecpp.go Source/languagepascal.go Source/languagewriter.go
> WORK=/tmp/go-build362236170
> runtime: mlock of signal stack failed: 12
> runtime: increase the mlock limit (ulimit -l) or
> runtime: update your kernel to 5.3.15+, 5.4.2+, or 5.5+
> fatal error: mlock failed
> runtime stack:
> runtime.throw(0xa3b43e, 0xc)
> /usr/lib/golang/src/runtime/panic.go:1112 +0x72
I can build the package just fine, see the copr builds. How are you using
fedora-review?
--
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 1819148] Review Request: act - Automatic Component Toolkit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1819148
Weiping changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zwp10...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Weiping ---
Hi,
this is an informal review:
> Name: act
> %global lname AutomaticComponentToolkit
It's not recommended to use lname, please follow name guideline:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/
> %{?gometa}
> %{?!gometa:BuildRequires: /usr/bin/go}
Packages MUST have BuildRequires: go-rpm-macros.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Golang/#_dependencies
> mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_bindir}
> install -m 0755 -vp act %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/
Better to use these macors:
install -m 0755 -vd %{buildroot}%{_bindir}
install -m 0755 -vp %{gobuilddir}/bin/* %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Golang/#_binary_package_installation
Please add
%global golicenses LICENSE.md
%global godocs README.md
There is an example, for simple binary package:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Golang/#_simple_binary_package
fedora-review failed to build this package:
+ GO111MODULE=off
+ go build -buildmode pie -compiler gc '-tags=rpm_crashtraceback ' -ldflags '
-B 0x4b072daa5c63e7865a65639d9d94578a8d195116 -extldflags '\''-Wl,-z,relro
-Wl,--as-needed -Wl,-z,now -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-ld '\'''
-a -v -x -o act Source/actutils.go Source/automaticcomponenttoolkit.go
Source/buildbindingccpp.go Source/buildbindingcsharp.go
Source/buildbindinggo.go Source/buildbindingnode.go
Source/buildbindingpascal.go Source/buildbindingpython.go
Source/buildimplementationcpp.go Source/buildimplementationpascal.go
Source/componentdefinition.go Source/componentdiff.go Source/languagec.go
Source/languagecpp.go Source/languagepascal.go Source/languagewriter.go
WORK=/tmp/go-build362236170
runtime: mlock of signal stack failed: 12
runtime: increase the mlock limit (ulimit -l) or
runtime: update your kernel to 5.3.15+, 5.4.2+, or 5.5+
fatal error: mlock failed
runtime stack:
runtime.throw(0xa3b43e, 0xc)
/usr/lib/golang/src/runtime/panic.go:1112 +0x72
--
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 1819148] Review Request: act - Automatic Component Toolkit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1819148 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1818945 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1818945 [Bug 1818945] Review Request: lib3mf - Implementation of the 3D Manufacturing Format file standard -- 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
