[Bug 1860012] Review Request: binaryen - Compiler and toolchain infrastructure library for WebAssembly
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860012 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-73aa80896b 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 1860012] Review Request: binaryen - Compiler and toolchain infrastructure library for WebAssembly
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860012 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-08-27 14:20:49 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-c6a1f4da01 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 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 1860012] Review Request: binaryen - Compiler and toolchain infrastructure library for WebAssembly
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860012 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-73aa80896b 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-2020-73aa80896b \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-73aa80896b 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 1860012] Review Request: binaryen - Compiler and toolchain infrastructure library for WebAssembly
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860012 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-c6a1f4da01 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 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-c6a1f4da01 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-c6a1f4da01 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 1860012] Review Request: binaryen - Compiler and toolchain infrastructure library for WebAssembly
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860012 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-73aa80896b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-73aa80896b -- 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 1860012] Review Request: binaryen - Compiler and toolchain infrastructure library for WebAssembly
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860012 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-c6a1f4da01 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-c6a1f4da01 -- 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 1860012] Review Request: binaryen - Compiler and toolchain infrastructure library for WebAssembly
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860012 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-c6a1f4da01 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-c6a1f4da01 -- 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 1860012] Review Request: binaryen - Compiler and toolchain infrastructure library for WebAssembly
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860012 --- Comment #11 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/binaryen -- 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 1860012] Review Request: binaryen - Compiler and toolchain infrastructure library for WebAssembly
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860012 Andy Mender changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |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 1860012] Review Request: binaryen - Compiler and toolchain infrastructure library for WebAssembly
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860012 --- Comment #10 from Andy Mender --- No, sorry, forgot to approve! -- 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 1860012] Review Request: binaryen - Compiler and toolchain infrastructure library for WebAssembly
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860012 --- Comment #9 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski --- (In reply to Andy Mender from comment #8) > Other than that, the package looks good already. Is there anything else apart from the visual formatting? Do you want me to post another revision with just the formatting changes? -- 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 1860012] Review Request: binaryen - Compiler and toolchain infrastructure library for WebAssembly
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860012
--- Comment #8 from Andy Mender ---
> It's not mandatory, but I can reformat if you think it makes a difference.
It would improve maintainability. Appreciated!
> Indeed they do. This is
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_rpath_for_internal_libraries
> .
However, I made the path relative to $ORIGIN (== where the binary is
physically present in the file system) so that tests run correctly
during %check with the binaries in %{buildroot}.
Thanks for the link. I agree with your approach.
Other than that, the package looks good already.
--
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 1860012] Review Request: binaryen - Compiler and toolchain infrastructure library for WebAssembly
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860012
--- Comment #7 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski ---
(In reply to Andy Mender from comment #6)
> > There are spaces after each semi-colon. I'm not sure what needs fixing here.
>
> I meant splitting the initial tags into blocks and tabulating the visually
> into columns (with spaces) like this:
> Name: epic5
> Version:2.1.2
Got it.
> I don't know whether it's mandatory, but it aides readability :).
It's not mandatory, but I can reformat if you think it makes a difference.
> I re-ran `fedora-review` and it picked up a couple of new items:
> [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
> Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/binaryen
> [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
> Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/binaryen
>
> "%{_libdir}/%{name}/" should be listed in the %files section perhaps?
Good catch, thanks. I'll fix this.
> Rpmlint
> ---
> Checking: binaryen-95-3.fc33.x86_64.rpm
> binaryen-debuginfo-95-3.fc33.x86_64.rpm
> binaryen-debugsource-95-3.fc33.x86_64.rpm
> binaryen-95-3.fc33.src.rpm
> [...]
> binaryen.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/wasm-as
> ['$ORIGIN/../lib64/binaryen']
> binaryen.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/wasm-ctor-eval
> ['$ORIGIN/../lib64/binaryen']
> binaryen.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/wasm-dis
> ['$ORIGIN/../lib64/binaryen']
> binaryen.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath
> /usr/bin/wasm-emscripten-finalize ['$ORIGIN/../lib64/binaryen']
> binaryen.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/wasm-metadce
> ['$ORIGIN/../lib64/binaryen']
> binaryen.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/wasm-opt
> ['$ORIGIN/../lib64/binaryen']
> binaryen.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/wasm-reduce
> ['$ORIGIN/../lib64/binaryen']
> binaryen.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/wasm-shell
> ['$ORIGIN/../lib64/binaryen']
> binaryen.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/wasm2js
> ['$ORIGIN/../lib64/binaryen']
> binaryen.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath
> /usr/lib64/binaryen/libbinaryen.so ['$ORIGIN/../lib64/binaryen']
>
> Just double-checking - these come from your RPATH fixes, correct?
Indeed they do. This is
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_rpath_for_internal_libraries
.
However, I made the path relative to $ORIGIN (== where the binary is
physically present in the file system) so that tests run correctly
during %check with the binaries in %{buildroot}.
--
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 1860012] Review Request: binaryen - Compiler and toolchain infrastructure library for WebAssembly
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860012
--- Comment #6 from Andy Mender ---
> There are spaces after each semi-colon. I'm not sure what needs fixing here.
I meant splitting the initial tags into blocks and tabulating the visually into
columns (with spaces) like this:
Name: epic5
Version:2.1.2
Release:1%{?dist}
Summary:Enhanced Programmable ircII Client
# contrib/ircman.c is GPL licensed
License:BSD and GPL
URL:http://www.epicsol.org
Source0:
http://ftp.epicsol.org/pub/epic/EPIC5-PRODUCTION/%{name}-%{version}.tar.xz
BuildRequires: gcc
BuildRequires: gdbm-devel
BuildRequires: pkgconfig(ncurses)
BuildRequires: pkgconfig(openssl)
I don't know whether it's mandatory, but it aides readability :).
> This is a compiler and the unversioned SO is an internal shared library,
so it doesn't make sense to split it out as it's not usable on its own
(unlike libgcc).
Thanks for clarifying this. I am new to packaging for Fedora and especially to
packaging compilers.
> - use built binaries in tests
> - fix (r)paths to internal shared library
> - filter internal shared library from Provides/Requires
> - fix build on F31/F32
Nice!
I re-ran `fedora-review` and it picked up a couple of new items:
[ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/binaryen
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/binaryen
"%{_libdir}/%{name}/" should be listed in the %files section perhaps?
Rpmlint
---
Checking: binaryen-95-3.fc33.x86_64.rpm
binaryen-debuginfo-95-3.fc33.x86_64.rpm
binaryen-debugsource-95-3.fc33.x86_64.rpm
binaryen-95-3.fc33.src.rpm
[...]
binaryen.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/wasm-as
['$ORIGIN/../lib64/binaryen']
binaryen.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/wasm-ctor-eval
['$ORIGIN/../lib64/binaryen']
binaryen.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/wasm-dis
['$ORIGIN/../lib64/binaryen']
binaryen.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath
/usr/bin/wasm-emscripten-finalize ['$ORIGIN/../lib64/binaryen']
binaryen.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/wasm-metadce
['$ORIGIN/../lib64/binaryen']
binaryen.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/wasm-opt
['$ORIGIN/../lib64/binaryen']
binaryen.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/wasm-reduce
['$ORIGIN/../lib64/binaryen']
binaryen.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/wasm-shell
['$ORIGIN/../lib64/binaryen']
binaryen.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/wasm2js
['$ORIGIN/../lib64/binaryen']
binaryen.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath
/usr/lib64/binaryen/libbinaryen.so ['$ORIGIN/../lib64/binaryen']
Just double-checking - these come from your RPATH fixes, correct?
--
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 1860012] Review Request: binaryen - Compiler and toolchain infrastructure library for WebAssembly
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860012 --- Comment #5 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski --- Spec URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/binaryen/binaryen.spec SRPM URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/binaryen/binaryen-95-3.fc33.src.rpm - fix build on F31/F32 -- 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 1860012] Review Request: binaryen - Compiler and toolchain infrastructure library for WebAssembly
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860012 --- Comment #4 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski --- Spec URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/binaryen/binaryen.spec SRPM URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/binaryen/binaryen-95-2.fc33.src.rpm - use built binaries in tests - fix (r)paths to internal shared library - filter internal shared library from Provides/Requires -- 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 1860012] Review Request: binaryen - Compiler and toolchain infrastructure library for WebAssembly
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860012
--- Comment #3 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski ---
(In reply to Andy Mender from comment #2)
> Package builds cleanly in a Fedora 33/Rawhide x86_64 local mock environment,
> but fails via `fedora-review` (possibly related to recent annobin issues).
> However, it fails in COPR for Fedora 31 and 32:
> https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/andymenderunix/binaryen/build/
> 1575944/
> and in Koji for Fedora 32:
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=47867411
> Issues are related to the build dir hierarchy.
I'll fix any build issues on 32 and older in the respective branches.
> > Summary: Compiler and toolchain infrastructure library for WebAssembly
> > Name: binaryen
> > Version: 95
> > Release: 1%{?dist}
> > URL: https://github.com/WebAssembly/binaryen
> > Source0: %{url}/archive/version_%{version}/%{name}-version_%{version}.tar.gz
> > # https://github.com/WebAssembly/binaryen/issues/2970
> > Patch0: %{name}-95-node-warn.patch
> > License: ASL 2.0
> > # tests fail on big-endian
> > # https://github.com/WebAssembly/binaryen/issues/2983
> > ExcludeArch: ppc64 s390x
> > BuildRequires: cmake3
> > BuildRequires: gcc-c++
> > %if %{with check}
> > BuildRequires: nodejs
> > %endif
>
> - Could you fix the alignment in these blocks? There should be spaces
> between the tags and the values.
There are spaces after each semi-colon. I'm not sure what needs fixing here.
> - I would add "gcc" as a BuildRequires as well.
gcc-c++ depends on gcc.
> > %{_includedir}/binaryen-c.h
> > %{_libdir}/%{name}/libbinaryen.so
>
> The header and unversioned SO should probably live in a separate -devel
> package. Not 100% sure in this case.
This is a compiler and the unversioned SO is an internal shared library,
so it doesn't make sense to split it out as it's not usable on its own
(unlike libgcc).
Arguably, I should filter out that SO from both Provides: and Requires:.
> The review matrix (some items are missing due to issues with building):
>
> Package Review
> ==
>
> Legend:
> [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
> [ ] = Manual review needed
>
>
> Issues:
> ===
> - Package installs properly.
> Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
> See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
The x86_64 RPM from the scratch build I pasted above installs fine. Why are you
trying to install binary RPMs for all arches at the same time on a single
machine? I cannot work.
[...]
> = SHOULD items =
>
> Generic:
> [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
> [-]: 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).
> [?]: Package functions as described.
It actually doesn't. See below.
[...]
>
> = EXTRA items =
>
> Generic:
> [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
I ran rpmlint manually and it caught binaries having the wrong RPATH. I'll fix
that.
Thanks for the 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 1860012] Review Request: binaryen - Compiler and toolchain infrastructure library for WebAssembly
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860012
--- Comment #2 from Andy Mender ---
Package builds cleanly in a Fedora 33/Rawhide x86_64 local mock environment,
but fails via `fedora-review` (possibly related to recent annobin issues).
However, it fails in COPR for Fedora 31 and 32:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/andymenderunix/binaryen/build/1575944/
and in Koji for Fedora 32:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=47867411
Issues are related to the build dir hierarchy.
> Summary: Compiler and toolchain infrastructure library for WebAssembly
> Name: binaryen
> Version: 95
> Release: 1%{?dist}
> URL: https://github.com/WebAssembly/binaryen
> Source0: %{url}/archive/version_%{version}/%{name}-version_%{version}.tar.gz
> # https://github.com/WebAssembly/binaryen/issues/2970
> Patch0: %{name}-95-node-warn.patch
> License: ASL 2.0
> # tests fail on big-endian
> # https://github.com/WebAssembly/binaryen/issues/2983
> ExcludeArch: ppc64 s390x
> BuildRequires: cmake3
> BuildRequires: gcc-c++
> %if %{with check}
> BuildRequires: nodejs
> %endif
- Could you fix the alignment in these blocks? There should be spaces between
the tags and the values.
- I would add "gcc" as a BuildRequires as well.
> %{_includedir}/binaryen-c.h
> %{_libdir}/%{name}/libbinaryen.so
The header and unversioned SO should probably live in a separate -devel
package. Not 100% sure in this case.
The review matrix (some items are missing due to issues with building):
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[?]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
Note: Using prebuilt packages
Review: Problems in f31 and f32
[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]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright*
Apache License 2.0", "Unicode strict", "Public domain", "Apache
License 2.0 GNU General Public License (v2)". 1696 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
[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.
[!]: 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.
[?]: 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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
Review: ExcludeArch included and justified.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 153600 bytes in 5 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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
[Bug 1860012] Review Request: binaryen - Compiler and toolchain infrastructure library for WebAssembly
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860012 Andy Mender changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- 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 1860012] Review Request: binaryen - Compiler and toolchain infrastructure library for WebAssembly
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860012 Andy Mender changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||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 1860012] Review Request: binaryen - Compiler and toolchain infrastructure library for WebAssembly
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860012 Andy Mender changed: What|Removed |Added CC||andymenderu...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|andymenderu...@gmail.com -- 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 1860012] Review Request: binaryen - Compiler and toolchain infrastructure library for WebAssembly
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860012 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski changed: What|Removed |Added Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value --- Comment #1 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski --- Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=47760545 -- 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
