[Bug 1887621] Review Request: folly - An open-source C++ library developed and used at Facebook
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887621 --- Comment #30 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-45065fae47 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 1887621] Review Request: folly - An open-source C++ library developed and used at Facebook
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887621 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-11-14 01:11:20 --- Comment #29 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-53f08a8053 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 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 1887621] Review Request: folly - An open-source C++ library developed and used at Facebook
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887621 --- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-53f08a8053 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 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-2020-53f08a8053 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-53f08a8053 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 1887621] Review Request: folly - An open-source C++ library developed and used at Facebook
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887621 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-45065fae47 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-2020-45065fae47 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-45065fae47 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 1887621] Review Request: folly - An open-source C++ library developed and used at Facebook
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887621 --- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-53f08a8053 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-53f08a8053 -- 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 1887621] Review Request: folly - An open-source C++ library developed and used at Facebook
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887621 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-45065fae47 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-45065fae47 -- 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 1887621] Review Request: folly - An open-source C++ library developed and used at Facebook
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887621 Michel Alexandre Salim changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1892101 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1892101 [Bug 1892101] Review Request: fbthrift - Facebook's branch of Apache Thrift, including a new C++ server -- 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 1887621] Review Request: folly - An open-source C++ library developed and used at Facebook
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887621 Michel Alexandre Salim changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1891640 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1891640 [Bug 1891640] Review Request: wangle - Framework for building services in a consistent/modular/composable way -- 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 1887621] Review Request: folly - An open-source C++ library developed and used at Facebook
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887621 Michel Alexandre Salim changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1891639 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1891639 [Bug 1891639] Review Request: fizz - A C++14 implementation of the TLS-1.3 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
[Bug 1887621] Review Request: folly - An open-source C++ library developed and used at Facebook
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887621 --- Comment #24 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/folly -- 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 1887621] Review Request: folly - An open-source C++ library developed and used at Facebook
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887621 --- Comment #23 from Michel Alexandre Salim --- ❯ fedpkg request-repo folly 1887621 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/30071 -- 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 1887621] Review Request: folly - An open-source C++ library developed and used at Facebook
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887621 --- Comment #22 from Michel Alexandre Salim --- (In reply to Davide Cavalca from comment #20) > (In reply to Antonio T. sagitter from comment #18) > > folly.x86_64: W: no-documentation > > folly-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation > > FYI we do have documentation (under folly/docs, see > https://github.com/facebook/folly/tree/ > 2fa292ded20bb83383c010974bb7796b2832a84d/folly/docs). We should add a BR on > pandoc and build and ship this (possibly in its own subpackage). I missed this from our discussion, thanks for the reminder (In reply to Antonio T. sagitter from comment #21) > > - No tests ran > > Make '%check' section conditional, please. > Good point. It was not failing anyway but a bit misleading and a waste of time to invoke %ctest when we know it will be a no-op > The review is complete. Package approved. Thanks so much! -- 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 1887621] Review Request: folly - An open-source C++ library developed and used at Facebook
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887621 Antonio T. sagitter changed: What|Removed |Added CC|trp...@rocketmail.com | Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #21 from Antonio T. sagitter --- > - No tests ran Make '%check' section conditional, please. The review is complete. Package approved. -- 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 1887621] Review Request: folly - An open-source C++ library developed and used at Facebook
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887621 --- Comment #20 from Davide Cavalca --- (In reply to Antonio T. sagitter from comment #18) > folly.x86_64: W: no-documentation > folly-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation FYI we do have documentation (under folly/docs, see https://github.com/facebook/folly/tree/2fa292ded20bb83383c010974bb7796b2832a84d/folly/docs). We should add a BR on pandoc and build and ship this (possibly in its own subpackage). -- 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 1887621] Review Request: folly - An open-source C++ library developed and used at Facebook
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887621 --- Comment #19 from Davide Cavalca --- (In reply to Antonio T. sagitter from comment #18) > - folly.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl > /usr/lib64/libfolly.so.2020.10.19.00 SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list > > $ rpmlint -I crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl > crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl: > This application package calls a function to explicitly set crypto ciphers > for > SSL/TLS. That may cause the application not to use the system-wide set > cryptographic policy and should be modified in accordance to: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:CryptoPolicies > > See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/CryptoPolicies/ I don't think this is applicable in this case. The code triggering this is https://github.com/facebook/folly/blob/2fa292ded20bb83383c010974bb7796b2832a84d/folly/io/async/SSLContext.cpp#L211-L217 which is just wrapping OpenSSL as part of the SSLContext interface. This is definitely relevant for applications using folly that consume this interface, but I don't think the library itself should hardcode PROFILE=SYSTEM here. -- 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 1887621] Review Request: folly - An open-source C++ library developed and used at Facebook
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887621
--- Comment #18 from Antonio T. sagitter ---
- folly.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl
/usr/lib64/libfolly.so.2020.10.19.00 SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list
$ rpmlint -I crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl
crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl:
This application package calls a function to explicitly set crypto ciphers for
SSL/TLS. That may cause the application not to use the system-wide set
cryptographic policy and should be modified in accordance to:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:CryptoPolicies
See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/CryptoPolicies/
- No tests ran
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: 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]: 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]: 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.
[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", "Expat License",
"GNU General Public License (v2)", "zlib/libpng license". 214 files
have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/sagitter/1887621-folly/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[-]: 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.
[x]: 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 3 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]: Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if
present.
Note: Package has .a files: folly-static.
[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
[Bug 1887621] Review Request: folly - An open-source C++ library developed and used at Facebook
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887621 --- Comment #17 from Michel Alexandre Salim --- Spec URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/libdevel/folly.spec SRPM URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/libdevel/folly-2020.10.19.00-4.fc33.src.rpm - Put static cmake support files in its own directory - Add most folly BRs as folly-devel requirements, as dependent packages will need them -- 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 1887621] Review Request: folly - An open-source C++ library developed and used at Facebook
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887621 --- Comment #16 from Michel Alexandre Salim --- Let's make fedora-review happy Spec URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/libdevel/folly.spec SRPM URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/libdevel/folly-2020.10.19.00-3.fc33.src.rpm -- 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 1887621] Review Request: folly - An open-source C++ library developed and used at Facebook
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887621 --- Comment #15 from Davide Cavalca --- (In reply to Antonio T. sagitter from comment #14) > The link to src-rpm is wrong. The right one should be https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/libdevel/folly-2020.10.19.00-3.fc33.src.rpm -- 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 1887621] Review Request: folly - An open-source C++ library developed and used at Facebook
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887621 --- Comment #14 from Antonio T. sagitter --- (In reply to Michel Alexandre Salim from comment #13) > Spec URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/libdevel/folly.spec > SRPM URL: > https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/libdevel/folly-2020.10.12.00-3.fc33. > src.rpm > The link to src-rpm is wrong. -- 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 1887621] Review Request: folly - An open-source C++ library developed and used at Facebook
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887621 --- Comment #13 from Michel Alexandre Salim --- Spec URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/libdevel/folly.spec SRPM URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/libdevel/folly-2020.10.12.00-3.fc33.src.rpm Koji scratch build (Rawhide): https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=53951900 Local mock build (Fedora 33): https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/libdevel/folly-2020.10.19.00-3.fc33-logs/ This has both shared libraries (in folly and folly-devel) and static libraries (in folly-static). Davide's fixes are added as patches and I have another fix that's being upstreamed to fix the pkgconfig file to have the right version. Tests and Python bindings are currently disabled as they don't work yet, will work on fixing them later. -- 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 1887621] Review Request: folly - An open-source C++ library developed and used at Facebook
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887621 --- Comment #12 from Davide Cavalca --- (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #11) > Main value of using PROPERTIES VERSION over OUTPUT_NAME is that CMake > handles structuring the filename correctly for the target OS for you (e.g. > -.dll for Windows and Midipix, lib..dylib for > macOS, lib.so. for Linux/BSD, etc.). My understanding is that > OUTPUT_NAME turns all that logic off. Thanks, fixed this upstream in https://github.com/facebook/folly/commit/f817aff73bea2ce956ec2212c34d12cd206f31cf (In reply to Michel Alexandre Salim from comment #8) > I needed to add -fPIC, which is not in the default CXXFLAGS This is also fixed upstream in https://github.com/facebook/folly/commit/3b1bdb98c3e2ca1e18db4a74c2674f22a7d05b48 -- 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 1887621] Review Request: folly - An open-source C++ library developed and used at Facebook
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887621 --- Comment #11 from Neal Gompa --- (In reply to Davide Cavalca from comment #10) > (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #9) > > You'd want to adjust the build script to set the soversion to match version. > > Otherwise the generated dependency would be broken or otherwise wrong. > > > > You can see an example of how this was done with Google Test (which has > > similar issues): > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gtest/blob/master/f/gtest-1.8.1- > > libversion.patch > > Interesting, it looks like that's overriding PROPERTIES VERSION. Thoughts on > doing that vs using OUTPUT_NAME ? From reading > https://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/manual/html_node/Updating-version-info. > html and > https://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/manual/html_node/Release-numbers. > html#Release-numbers it sounds like for the case when the ABI changes on > every release one should use libtool -release, and apparently its equivalent > in cmake land is overriding OUTPUT_NAME to include the version. Main value of using PROPERTIES VERSION over OUTPUT_NAME is that CMake handles structuring the filename correctly for the target OS for you (e.g. -.dll for Windows and Midipix, lib..dylib for macOS, lib.so. for Linux/BSD, etc.). My understanding is that OUTPUT_NAME turns all that logic off. -- 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 1887621] Review Request: folly - An open-source C++ library developed and used at Facebook
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887621 --- Comment #10 from Davide Cavalca --- (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #9) > You'd want to adjust the build script to set the soversion to match version. > Otherwise the generated dependency would be broken or otherwise wrong. > > You can see an example of how this was done with Google Test (which has > similar issues): > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gtest/blob/master/f/gtest-1.8.1- > libversion.patch Interesting, it looks like that's overriding PROPERTIES VERSION. Thoughts on doing that vs using OUTPUT_NAME ? From reading https://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/manual/html_node/Updating-version-info.html and https://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/manual/html_node/Release-numbers.html#Release-numbers it sounds like for the case when the ABI changes on every release one should use libtool -release, and apparently its equivalent in cmake land is overriding OUTPUT_NAME to include the version. -- 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 1887621] Review Request: folly - An open-source C++ library developed and used at Facebook
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887621
--- Comment #9 from Neal Gompa ---
(In reply to Michel Alexandre Salim from comment #8)
> (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #6)
> > (In reply to Davide Cavalca from comment #4)
> > >
> > > About the static libraries: folly doesn't have a stable ABI, by design, so
> > > it doesn't seem useful to build shared libraries for it
> >
> > There are a couple of issues with not producing shared libraries:
> >
> > * debuginfo subpackages aren't really possible to generate properly with
> > only static libraries
>
> yeah, debuginfo is disabled for now for folly. Is the concern that packages
> built against folly also can't have proper debuginfo?
>
It is potentially problematic, yeah.
> > * it makes it difficult to track things that need to be rebuilt if folly was
> > updated
>
> Per policy they're supposed to BR folly-static -- so just searching for
> those and rebuilding should be fine, right?
>
In theory, yes. I don't know if anyone has built any automation for that,
though. Most of our automation is built around detecting when the runtime
dependency breaks to detect a need for rebuilds.
> >
> > A suggestion for shared libraries support: you can do something like having
> > the soname change with version bumps to match ABI policy
>
> I suppose we can rename the *.so files manually to *.so.%{flattenedversion}
> - though we will have to patch the build system to allow building both
> static and dynamic libs in one pass.
>
You'd want to adjust the build script to set the soversion to match version.
Otherwise the generated dependency would be broken or otherwise wrong.
You can see an example of how this was done with Google Test (which has similar
issues):
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gtest/blob/master/f/gtest-1.8.1-libversion.patch
--
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 1887621] Review Request: folly - An open-source C++ library developed and used at Facebook
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887621
--- Comment #8 from Michel Alexandre Salim ---
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #6)
> (In reply to Davide Cavalca from comment #4)
> >
> > About the static libraries: folly doesn't have a stable ABI, by design, so
> > it doesn't seem useful to build shared libraries for it
>
> There are a couple of issues with not producing shared libraries:
>
> * debuginfo subpackages aren't really possible to generate properly with
> only static libraries
yeah, debuginfo is disabled for now for folly. Is the concern that packages
built against folly also can't have proper debuginfo?
> * it makes it difficult to track things that need to be rebuilt if folly was
> updated
Per policy they're supposed to BR folly-static -- so just searching for those
and rebuilding should be fine, right?
>
> A suggestion for shared libraries support: you can do something like having
> the soname change with version bumps to match ABI policy
I suppose we can rename the *.so files manually to *.so.%{flattenedversion} -
though we will have to patch the build system to allow building both static and
dynamic libs in one pass.
(In reply to Antonio T. sagitter from comment #2)
> - Why do you leave a 'folly.rpm' just for the License file?
>
Hmm, yes. I was basing this on boost's spec where the license goes into the
main package, but without shared libs we might as well only have a
-devel/static
> - CXXFLAGS should be automatically set by %cmake
>
I needed to add -fPIC, which is not in the default CXXFLAGS
> - Fix Version inside 'libfolly.pc' file.
>
ack
--
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 1887621] Review Request: folly - An open-source C++ library developed and used at Facebook
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887621 --- Comment #7 from Davide Cavalca --- https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/liburing/pull-request/1 should take care of liburing-devel on armv7hl -- 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 1887621] Review Request: folly - An open-source C++ library developed and used at Facebook
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887621 Neal Gompa changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ngomp...@gmail.com --- Comment #6 from Neal Gompa --- (In reply to Davide Cavalca from comment #4) > > About the static libraries: folly doesn't have a stable ABI, by design, so > it doesn't seem useful to build shared libraries for it There are a couple of issues with not producing shared libraries: * debuginfo subpackages aren't really possible to generate properly with only static libraries * it makes it difficult to track things that need to be rebuilt if folly was updated A suggestion for shared libraries support: you can do something like having the soname change with version bumps to match ABI policy -- 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 1887621] Review Request: folly - An open-source C++ library developed and used at Facebook
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887621 --- Comment #5 from Davide Cavalca --- https://github.com/facebook/folly/commit/81e350e10b855e5ec48430677bc82d8f7e84015b should fix the i686 build failure -- 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 1887621] Review Request: folly - An open-source C++ library developed and used at Facebook
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887621 --- Comment #4 from Davide Cavalca --- Thanks! About the build failures: - arm7hl: No matching package to install: 'liburing-devel' - s390x: multiple build failures, including some endianness issues: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/1486/53501486/build.log - i686: template-related build failure: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/1482/53501482/build.log I think we may want to exclude these, at least for now -- especially s390x looks like it would require some fairly significant upstream work to properly support. About the static libraries: folly doesn't have a stable ABI, by design, so it doesn't seem useful to build shared libraries for it -- 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 1887621] Review Request: folly - An open-source C++ library developed and used at Facebook
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887621 --- Comment #3 from Antonio T. sagitter --- Build failed on Rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=53501450 - Package does not compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture -- 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 1887621] Review Request: folly - An open-source C++ library developed and used at Facebook
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887621
--- Comment #2 from Antonio T. sagitter ---
- Please, fix the Changelog.
- Why do you leave a 'folly.rpm' just for the License file?
- CXXFLAGS should be automatically set by %cmake
- Why don't build shared libs instead of static ones?
- Fix Version inside 'libfolly.pc' file.
- Package successfully does not compile and build into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: 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]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[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.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "Apache License 2.0", "Expat License",
"GNU General Public License (v2)", "zlib/libpng license". 202 files
have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/sagitter/1887621-folly/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[-]: 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.
[ ]: 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.
[!]: 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 3 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[!]: 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]: Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if
present.
Note: Package has .a files: folly-devel.
[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.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Sources are verified with
[Bug 1887621] Review Request: folly - An open-source C++ library developed and used at Facebook
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887621 Antonio T. sagitter changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||trp...@rocketmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|trp...@rocketmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Antonio T. sagitter --- Hi Michel. Please, take care of SeqAn: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1810293 -- 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
