[Bug 1109390] Review Request: llvm33 - Versioned LLVM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109390 --- Comment #39 from Fedora Update System --- llvm33-3.3-3.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1109390] Review Request: llvm33 - Versioned LLVM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109390 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed|2014-08-28 03:27:33 |2015-10-31 22:34:53 -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1109390] Review Request: llvm33 - Versioned LLVM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109390 --- Comment #38 from Milan Bouchet-Valat --- I wouldn't worry too much about keeping them in sync: given the current upstream plans, F24 will be released with the next version of Julia, which will probably rely on LLVM 3.8. So llvm33 would only live for one release cycle. -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1109390] Review Request: llvm33 - Versioned LLVM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109390 --- Comment #37 from Jens Petersen --- (In reply to Milan Bouchet-Valat from comment #36) > For -O3, I agree to drop it, but since it has worked for so long it doesn't > sound like > a serious issue. I'll fix that in the .spec file, but not worth doing an > update if we don't find other issues. Right that sounds fine - just wanted to let you know. There is no need to keep lockstep but probably good to try to back/forward port fixes over time between llvm33/llvm34/llvm35/llvmXY to keep them roughly in sync. (Down the road probably need to consider their lifetime too - we shouldn't need to carry these older versions forever in Fedora but for some releases it makes sense.) Thanks again -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1109390] Review Request: llvm33 - Versioned LLVM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109390 --- Comment #36 from Milan Bouchet-Valat --- Ah, good catch, owning an empty dir doesn't make much sense. For -O3, I agree to drop it, but since it has worked for so long it doesn't sound like a serious issue. I'll fix that in the .spec file, but not worth doing an update if we don't find other issues. -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1109390] Review Request: llvm33 - Versioned LLVM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109390
--- Comment #35 from Jens Petersen ---
BTW minor thing - still not sure if llvm33 needs to own
'%dir %{_datadir}/%{name}'? Keeping it in llvm33-devel looks okay to me.
And I noticed that I dropped -O3 from llvm34 - maybe you want to too?
I will probably drop it from llvm35 also.
--
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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1109390] Review Request: llvm33 - Versioned LLVM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109390 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #34 from Fedora Update System --- llvm33-3.3-3.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update llvm33' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-c39b0b2f3b -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1109390] Review Request: llvm33 - Versioned LLVM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109390 --- Comment #33 from Fedora Update System --- llvm33-3.3-3.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-c39b0b2f3b -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1109390] Review Request: llvm33 - Versioned LLVM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109390 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1109390] Review Request: llvm33 - Versioned LLVM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109390 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #32 from Jens Petersen --- Sorry this drifted off my radar again... been too busy, but had been meaning to get back to this. I don't see any real issues with this package relative to the llvm and llvm34 packages. From the llvm35 review I filed several bugs against llvm to improve its packaging. I think it is good that the llvmXY packages stay close and compatible to the original llvm version packagings. So I am going ahead finally and approving this - looks good enough to me. 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1109390] Review Request: llvm33 - Versioned LLVM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109390 --- Comment #31 from Milan Bouchet-Valat --- Jens, would you finish your review? We should try to get both llvm3.3 and llvm3.5 in. -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1109390] Review Request: llvm33 - Versioned LLVM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109390 --- Comment #30 from Jens Petersen --- (In reply to Jens Petersen from comment #28) > some way to add a prefix. Sorry suffix. -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1109390] Review Request: llvm33 - Versioned LLVM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109390 --- Comment #29 from Jens Petersen --- (In reply to Milan Bouchet-Valat from comment #27) > Ah, I didn't know that. I can review it if you want. Sounds like a logical > exchange. Okay if you have time that would be appreciated. -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1109390] Review Request: llvm33 - Versioned LLVM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109390
--- Comment #28 from Jens Petersen ---
Thanks for all your work on this.
I am not sure which binary package should really correctly own the datadir
but overall the package looks fine to me now.
The only outstanding/embarrassing remaining issue is:
[!]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
But this is also true for llvm and llvm34!
The only solution I see is to get rid of
/etc/ld.so.conf.d/%{name}-%{_arch}.conf
and then add some RPATH to the binaries.
But that is a bit of work to sort out... :-(
Or maybe the llvm buildsystem (cmake) allows
some way to add a prefix.
--
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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1109390] Review Request: llvm33 - Versioned LLVM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109390 --- Comment #27 from Milan Bouchet-Valat --- Ah, I didn't know that. I can review it if you want. Sounds like a logical exchange. -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1109390] Review Request: llvm33 - Versioned LLVM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109390 --- Comment #26 from Jens Petersen --- I note in passing that my llvm35 review is still open too (bug 1223673). -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1109390] Review Request: llvm33 - Versioned LLVM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109390 --- Comment #25 from Jens Petersen --- Thanks - will try to find time tomorrow to look at this again. -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1109390] Review Request: llvm33 - Versioned LLVM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109390 --- Comment #24 from Milan Bouchet-Valat --- Bump! :-) -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1109390] Review Request: llvm33 - Versioned LLVM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109390 --- Comment #23 from Milan Bouchet-Valat --- Sorry for the delay. I've synchronized llvm33.spec with your changes to llvm34.spec, and rebased the changelog and a few details on llvm.spec version 3.3. This one should be good to go -- and will allow me to finally stop these warnings a Julia FTBS on F23! Spec URL: https://nalimilan.fedorapeople.org/llvm33.spec SRPM URL: https://nalimilan.fedorapeople.org/llvm33-3.3-2.fc22.src.rpm Description: Versioned LLVM 3.3 Fedora Account System Username: nalimilan Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10614986 -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1109390] Review Request: llvm33 - Versioned LLVM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109390
--- Comment #22 from Jens Petersen ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
- Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: llvm33-doc : /usr/share/doc/llvm33-doc/examples/BrainF/BrainF.h
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[!]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[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: "BSD (3 clause)", "ISC", "Unknown or generated". 2304 files
have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/petersen/pkgreview/1109390-llvm33/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[!]: 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.
[x]: 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.
[x]: 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.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 665600 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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 use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[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: llvm33-static.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: 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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
llvm33-doc , llvm33-libs , llvm33-static
[x]: Package functions as des
[Bug 1109390] Review Request: llvm33 - Versioned LLVM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109390 --- Comment #21 from Jens Petersen --- One thing, it also be good to compare with the old llvm.spec for 3.3 and also rebase the changelog off that. http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/llvm.git/tree/llvm.spec?h=f19 -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1109390] Review Request: llvm33 - Versioned LLVM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109390 --- Comment #20 from Jens Petersen --- http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/llvm34.git/commit/?id=3c25e4ba6538f2f804a5b1f0ed67ea39e95f8c68 (I think it is good to try to keep the spec files for llvm33 <-> llvm34 <-> llvm35 <-> llvm36 in sync.) -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1109390] Review Request: llvm33 - Versioned LLVM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109390 --- Comment #19 from Jens Petersen --- (In reply to Milan Bouchet-Valat from comment #18) > OK, I've started from your llvm34 package, and with very few changes it > works. Thanks > %changelog > +* Sat Jul 04 2015 Milan Bouchet-Valat 3.3-1 > +- Create llvm33 package based on llvm34. > +- Fix configure option --with-c-include-dirs when several gcc versions are > installed. > +- Remove unused global downloadurl. Looks good to me. -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1109390] Review Request: llvm33 - Versioned LLVM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109390 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|peter...@redhat.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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1109390] Review Request: llvm33 - Versioned LLVM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109390 Milan Bouchet-Valat changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1231163 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1231163 [Bug 1231163] FTBFS: julia with LLVM 3.6 -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1109390] Review Request: llvm33 - Versioned LLVM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109390
Milan Bouchet-Valat changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Review Request: llvm3.3 - |Review Request: llvm33 -
|Versioned LLVM |Versioned LLVM
--- Comment #18 from Milan Bouchet-Valat ---
OK, I've started from your llvm34 package, and with very few changes it works.
Spec URL: https://nalimilan.fedorapeople.org/llvm33.spec
SRPM URL:
https://nalimilan.fedorapeople.org/llvm33-3.3-1.fc22.src.rpm
Description: Versioned LLVM 3.3
Fedora Account System Username: nalimilan
A Koji build is here:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10287200
The diff is:
--- ../llvm34/llvm34.spec2015-07-04 09:21:38.400208716 +0200
+++ ../llvm33/llvm33.spec2015-07-04 13:09:52.844414464 +0200
@@ -11,13 +11,11 @@
%global llvmdocdir() %{_docdir}/%1
%endif
-%global downloadurl
http://llvm.org/%{?prerel:pre-}releases/%{version}%{?prerel:/%{prerel}}
+%global major_version 3.3
-%global major_version 3.4
-
-Name: llvm34
-Version:3.4.2
-Release:7%{?dist}
+Name: llvm33
+Version:3.3
+Release:1%{?dist}
Summary:The Low Level Virtual Machine
Group: Development/Languages
@@ -34,9 +32,7 @@
# patches
Patch11:0001-data-install-preserve-timestamps.patch
Patch12:0002-linker-flags-speedup-memory.patch
-
-# temporary measure to get ppc64le building, if perhaps not working
-Patch21:0001-PPC64LE-ELFv2-ABI-updates-for-the-.opd-section.patch
+Patch13:0003-fix-clear-cache-declaration.patch
BuildRequires: bison
BuildRequires: chrpath
@@ -112,7 +108,7 @@
%patch11 -p1
%patch12 -p1
-%patch21 -p1
+%patch13 -p1
# fix library paths
sed -i.orig 's|/lib /usr/lib $lt_ld_extra|%{_libdir} $lt_ld_extra|' configure
@@ -169,7 +165,7 @@
%if %{with gold}
--with-binutils-include=%{_includedir} \
%endif
- --with-c-include-dirs=%{_includedir}:$(echo
%{_prefix}/lib/gcc/%{_target_cpu}*/*/include)
+ --with-c-include-dirs=%{_includedir}:$(ls -d1
%{_prefix}/lib/gcc/%{_target_cpu}*/*/include | tr "\\n" ":")
make %{_smp_mflags} REQUIRES_RTTI=1 VERBOSE=1 \
%ifarch ppc
@@ -275,7 +271,6 @@
%{_bindir}/bugpoint-%{major_version}
%{_bindir}/llc-%{major_version}
%{_bindir}/lli-%{major_version}
-%{_bindir}/lli-child-target-%{major_version}
%exclude %{_bindir}/llvm-config-%{__isa_bits}-%{major_version}
%{_bindir}/llvm*-%{major_version}
%{_bindir}/macho-dump-%{major_version}
@@ -300,6 +295,11 @@
%doc %{llvmdocdir %{name}-doc}/
%changelog
+* Sat Jul 04 2015 Milan Bouchet-Valat 3.3-1
+- Create llvm33 package based on llvm34.
+- Fix configure option --with-c-include-dirs when several gcc versions are
installed.
+- Remove unused global downloadurl.
+
* Wed Jun 17 2015 Fedora Release Engineering
- 3.4.2-7
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_23_Mass_Rebuild
(Note that the --with-c-include-dirs is something unrelated I've found out when
building the package on RHEL. I can remove it for now if you like.)
--
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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
