https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885430
giovanni.cabi...@intel.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885430
--- Comment #29 from giovanni.cabi...@intel.com ---
Thanks Carl. I imported the SRPM into dist-git.
--
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885430
--- Comment #28 from Carl George 鸞 ---
Thanks for making those changes upstream. Yes, the current SRPM is ready to be
imported into dist-git.
One final piece of advice, it's a bad idea to force push and move tags in the
upstream repo. It
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885430
--- Comment #27 from giovanni.cabi...@intel.com ---
Is it ok if I push the src rpm to dist-git?
Just to summarize:
* The upstream release (20.10) was changed to use the default numbering scheme
produced by autotools/libtool (as you
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885430
--- Comment #26 from giovanni.cabi...@intel.com ---
In the end changed the upstream release to use the names you suggested as the
change was small (just remove the logic in the makefile to rename the library).
We didn't include a symlink
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885430
--- Comment #25 from Carl George 鸞 ---
> BTW, I also checked other libraries and it seems that there isn't
> consistency. For e.g. this is the approach used by libc:
> libc.so.6 -> libc-2.32.so
> libc-2.32.so
> libc.so
The
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885430
--- Comment #24 from giovanni.cabi...@intel.com ---
The upstream project has been updated so that the libraries produced are:
libqat.so -> libqat.so.0.0.0
libqat.so.0 -> libqat.so.0.0.0
libqat.so.0.0.0
I also open a ticket for
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885430
--- Comment #23 from giovanni.cabi...@intel.com ---
> Why does qatlib need to rename the library file to include the software
> version?
The main reason why this was done in the upstream project was to have a simple
way to understand which
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885430
--- Comment #22 from Carl George 鸞 ---
> In the spec we were renaming .so.0.0.0 into .so.%{soversion}.%{version} and
> then creating symlinks to .so.%{soversion}
I'm not an expert in C libraries, but in a situation like this I'd prefer to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885430
--- Comment #21 from giovanni.cabi...@intel.com ---
> Correct, it doesn't get created until you request the package source repo
> with `fedpkg request-repo`.
The repo is now created, however the qatlib component is not visible yet in
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885430
--- Comment #20 from Gwyn Ciesla ---
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/qatlib
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885430
--- Comment #19 from giovanni.cabi...@intel.com ---
> I tried a build reverting that myself, and something else looks off.
> Previously the build was creating the library files with this suffix:
>
> .so.%{soversion}.%{version}
>
> Now
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885430
--- Comment #18 from Carl George 鸞 ---
> - When creating a ticket for tracking ExcludeArch, there isn't a component
> yet for qatlib. Is this created when the repo gets created or there is
> something I should do?
Correct, it doesn't get
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885430
--- Comment #17 from Carl George 鸞 ---
I tried a build reverting that myself, and something else looks off.
Previously the build was creating the library files with this suffix:
.so.%{soversion}.%{version}
Now using the Makefile target
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885430
--- Comment #16 from Carl George 鸞 ---
Awesome, thanks for doing the work to get that debundled and add the makefile
target. Importing the latest version of the spec file into dist-git is fine.
However, in the latest version of the spec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885430
--- Comment #15 from giovanni.cabi...@intel.com ---
Thanks Carl.
Two things:
- We just released 20.10 which includes the removal of bundled
OpenSSL/libcrypto and changes to the install target in the Makefile that allow
to improve spec file
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885430
--- Comment #14 from Carl George 鸞 ---
I just sponsored you as well. Let me know if you have any issues on the next
steps.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885430
Carl George 鸞 changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #13 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885430
--- Comment #12 from Carl George 鸞 ---
> app -> openssl:libcrypto_EVP -> qat_engine -> qat_lib ->
> openssl:libcrypto_EVP -> qat_engine -> qat_lib -> REPEAT
I still don't understand this, but I'm admittedly not a crypto expert.
Regardless,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885430
--- Comment #11 from giovanni.cabi...@intel.com ---
I uploaded a new version of the SPEC and the RPM:
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/intel/qatlib/v20_08/rpm/qatlib.spec
SRPM URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885430
--- Comment #10 from giovanni.cabi...@intel.com ---
I uploaded a new version of the SPEC and the RPM:
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/intel/qatlib/v20_08/rpm/qatlib.spec
SRPM URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885430
--- Comment #9 from Carl George 鸞 ---
> Based on [0] I added `Provides: bundled(libcrypto) = 1.1.1c`. If `openssl` is
> preferred I can change it.
Yes please, the guidelines are clear here. "If the bundled package also exists
separately in
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885430
--- Comment #8 from giovanni.cabi...@intel.com ---
I uploaded a new version of the SPEC and the RPM:
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/intel/qatlib/v20_08/rpm/qatlib.spec
SRPM URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885430
--- Comment #7 from Carl George 鸞 ---
> as the code contains some snippets of OpenSSL libcrypto.
If this package is going to bundle openssl (even if only partially), there are
two MUST requirements [0].
1. Add the line `Provides:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885430
--- Comment #6 from giovanni.cabi...@intel.com ---
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/intel/qatlib/v20_08/rpm/qatlib.spec
SRPM URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/intel/qatlib/v20_08/rpm/qatlib-20.08.0-1.fc32.src.rpm
>The license
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885430
--- Comment #5 from Carl George 鸞 ---
> I uploaded the new spec at the same location.
The review tool doesn't work with that link. It requires the spec URL to
return raw text. It also requires the current SRPM. Please upload the latest
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885430
--- Comment #4 from giovanni.cabi...@intel.com ---
Thanks for the review Carl. I uploaded the new spec at the same location.
More comments below.
> I tried to run fedora-review on this, but it failed to build (see the item
> below about
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885430
--- Comment #3 from Carl George 鸞 ---
I want to point out one thing that was brought up in bug 1885495.
Adding a license in a comment of the spec file is only appropriate if you wish
for the spec file itself to be available under a different
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885430
Carl George 鸞 changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||1885495
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885430
--- Comment #2 from Carl George 鸞 ---
I tried to run fedora-review on this, but it failed to build (see the item
below about missing build requirements). Here is a partial manual review of
what I've noticed so far.
- Using 0.1 for the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885430
Carl George 鸞 changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||c...@redhat.com
31 matches
Mail list logo
