[Bug 1806017] Review Request: opae - a sdk for fpga hardware
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1806017 Neil Horman changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed||2020-03-11 12:24:45 -- 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 1806017] Review Request: opae - a sdk for fpga hardware
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1806017 --- Comment #12 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/opae -- 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 1806017] Review Request: opae - a sdk for fpga hardware
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1806017 --- Comment #11 from Tom Rix --- Spec URL : https://github.com/trixirt/opae-rpm/blob/opae-1.4.0-5/opae.spec SRPM URL : https://releases.pagure.org/opae/opae-1.4.0-5.fc31.src.rpm The issues raised in by Elliot in comment 9 are addressed in this release with this commit https://github.com/trixirt/opae-rpm/commit/cf743c6407511578ad7c6781ae24b8abebc68179 -- 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 1806017] Review Request: opae - a sdk for fpga hardware
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1806017 Neil Horman changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ |needinfo?(t...@redhat.com) | --- Comment #10 from Neil Horman --- oh, duh, I'm sorry, I completely missed the fact that you converted to using the %make_build macro. You're right you're absolutely good to go. 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 1806017] Review Request: opae - a sdk for fpga hardware
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1806017
--- Comment #9 from Elliott Sales de Andrade ---
Please see the definition of %make_build, and the entry in the Guidelines:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_parallel_make There
is no need to add %{?_smp_mflags} to the invocation.
Additionally, this:
cd _build
make DESTDIR=%{buildroot} install
can be shortened to:
%make_install -C _build
Also, you have %license somewhere in the middle of the spec file. It does not
belong there, and is just putting random text at the end of your %description.
%license is a marker for entries in %files, like %doc or %dir, so the two
entries in %files should be changed from %doc to %license.
--
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 1806017] Review Request: opae - a sdk for fpga hardware
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1806017 --- Comment #8 from Neil Horman --- The review looks good now, but I'm confused about the _smp_mflags issue. I understand that your local builds reduce _smp_mflags to the same string, but theres no guarantee of that when doing official builds in fedora. Different buildroots will set those flags to different strings, and many are non-default to the local setup (they enable hardening, etc). That needs to be returned to the spec file, please Other than that though, it looks good. I'm not worried about the out of tree patches. For user space packages, since you are the maintainer currently, its your prerogative to decide whats ok to carry and whats not. If you're ok with those patches, and they're open source licensed, its fine with me. if you can readd the _smp_mflags macro, I'll approve this immediately. Thanks! -- 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 1806017] Review Request: opae - a sdk for fpga hardware
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1806017 --- Comment #7 from Tom Rix --- Spec URL : https://github.com/trixirt/opae-rpm/blob/opae-1.4.0-4/opae.spec SRPM URL : https://releases.pagure.org/opae/opae-1.4.0-4.fc31.src.rpm I believe these resolve the outstanding issues. The undefined symbols issue was resolved by improving the linking problem libraries. https://github.com/trixirt/opae-rpm/commit/01b36d83e89873f0ae42666a3620e0727ca0f038 The issue with _smp_mflags was resolved by removing it. https://github.com/trixirt/opae-rpm/commit/5e8a21b2ddd3fb14eeefabc57c9d87631240e71c On upstreaming changes. In general every git-ish patch 0001-* has been upstreamed. ex/ https://github.com/trixirt/opae-rpm/blob/opae-1.4.0-4/0001-Fix-exec-stack-in-fpga_dma_vc_test.patch maps to https://github.com/OPAE/opae-sdk/pull/1465 some like https://github.com/trixirt/opae-rpm/blob/opae-1.4.0-4/change-safestr-to-shared.patch maps to https://github.com/OPAE/opae-sdk/pull/1476 were not accepted because of fundamental changes in the opae-sdk master branch are on going. -- 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 1806017] Review Request: opae - a sdk for fpga hardware
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1806017
Neil Horman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?(t...@redhat.com)
--- Comment #6 from Neil Horman ---
This all looks pretty good now. The undefined symbols are still bothering me
though. It appears as though, when building, you aren't linking to the
libraries that implement the fpgaPropertiesSet* functions (I believe
libopae-c.so). As such there are no DT_NEEDED entries in the libraries calling
these functions to auto-load those dependent libraries. Was that intentional,
and if so, can you document why here?
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- 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.
Note: License file COPYING is not marked as %license
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text
= 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", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised"
License", "Expat License BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License",
"Expat License", "*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)", "GNU General
Public License (v2)". 549 files have unknown license. Detailed output
of licensecheck in /home/nhorman/Downloads/review-
opae/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/systemd/system,
/usr/lib/systemd
[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.
[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]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[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]: %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 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]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not
[Bug 1806017] Review Request: opae - a sdk for fpga hardware
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1806017
Elliott Sales de Andrade changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||quantum.anal...@gmail.com
--- Comment #5 from Elliott Sales de Andrade ---
%make_build already includes %{?_smp_mflags}.
> [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
> justified.
They are not linked or commented.
--
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 1806017] Review Request: opae - a sdk for fpga hardware
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1806017 --- Comment #4 from Tom Rix --- Spec URL : https://github.com/trixirt/opae-rpm/blob/opae-1.4.0-3/opae.spec SRPM URL : https://releases.pagure.org/opae/opae-1.4.0-3.fc31.src.rpm I believe address the outstanding issues. The biggest change was consolidating the samples, tools and tools-extra packages into the devel package. The non-versioned *.so are intentional. They have been moved to the devel package libsafestr.a was converted to a shared library. rpmlint for undefined/weak symbols for fpga* are in the libopae-c.so.1.4.0 library *_s are in the libsafestr.so.1.4.0 These libraries are part of the base package. At this time, there is no other documentation / manpages. The license files are now distributed in the the opae datadir ldconfig use removed Use of systemd_* macros for fpga.service -- 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 1806017] Review Request: opae - a sdk for fpga hardware
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1806017
--- Comment #3 from Neil Horman ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
Note: /sbin/ldconfig called in opae, opae-tools, opae-tools-extra
<= you need to add this for the listed packages
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Removing_ldconfig_scriptlets
- Dist tag is not present.
<= you need to add a %{?dist} tag to the release tag
- Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
<= spec file has to be named opae.spec
Note: opae-1.4.0-2.spec should be opae.spec
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/#_spec_file_naming
- Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if
<= If you want to ship the .a files, you need to put them in a -static
subpackage
present.
Note: Package has .a files: opae-devel. Does not provide -static: opae-
devel.
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/#packaging-static-libraries
- systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and
<= Probably self explanatory
systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files.
Note: Systemd service file(s) in opae-tools
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/Scriptlets/#_scriptlets
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[!]: Package contains no static executables.
<= see above
[!]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
<= you've got some unversioned .so files in the main package, should be
versioned or in the -devel subpackage
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[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.
[!]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
<= Just need to include the LICENSE file in the main package manifest using
the %license tag
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", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised"
License", "Expat License BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License",
"Expat License", "*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)", "GNU General
Public License (v2)". 549 files have unknown license. Detailed output
of licensecheck in /home/nhorman/1806017-opae-1.4.0-2/licensecheck.txt
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
<= assuming the opae package is required by all subpackages, this will be
fixed when you include the license file
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
<= Need to use the %dir tag on the listed directories in the manifest
Note: No known owner of /usr/src/opae/samples, /etc/opae,
/usr/lib64/opae, /usr/src/opae/cmake/modules, /usr/src/opae/cmake
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/opae,
/usr/src/opae/cmake, /usr/lib/systemd, /usr/src/opae/cmake/modules,
/usr/lib/systemd/system, /usr/lib64/opae, /usr/src/opae/samples
[!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
<= IIRC, you need to specify the %{_smp_flags} macro when calling %cmake
[?]: 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
<= this is the same as the unversioned so files above
[!]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory<=
use %{_unitdir instead of fully qualified paths to service files}
names).
[x]:
[Bug 1806017] Review Request: opae - a sdk for fpga hardware
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1806017 Neil Horman 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 1806017] Review Request: opae - a sdk for fpga hardware
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1806017 Neil Horman changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|nhor...@redhat.com QA Contact|extras...@fedoraproject.org |nhor...@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 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 1806017] Review Request: opae - a sdk for fpga hardware
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1806017 --- Comment #2 from Tom Rix --- The spec and srpm have been updated to address these issues. Also removed the %clean section per https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_tags_and_sections Needed to change the name on spec to work around release folder conflict with opae.spec. Spec URL : https://releases.pagure.org/opae/opae-1.4.0-2.spec SRPM URL : https://releases.pagure.org/opae/opae-1.4.0-2.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 1806017] Review Request: opae - a sdk for fpga hardware
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1806017
Artur Iwicki changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fed...@svgames.pl
--- Comment #1 from Artur Iwicki ---
>Group: Development/Libraries
>Vendor: Intel Corporation
>...
>Group: Development/Libraries
These are not used in Fedora.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_tags_and_sections
>Requires: libuuid, json-c, python
>BuildRequires: python-devel
>BuildRequires: python-sphinx
Referring to python in an unversion fashion is a big no-no in Fedora spec
files. ;)
You should explicitly specify "python3" here.
>Source0:
>https://github.com/OPAE/opae-sdk/releases/download/%{version}-%{release}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}.tar.gz
Do not include %{release} in the source name, as that will cause the source
name to change every time you make any changes to the spec.
>%package devel
>Requires: %{name}
This should be a versioned dependency: "%{name}%{?_isa} =
%{version}-%{release}".
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_requiring_base_package
>%files
>%defattr(-,root,root,-)
Do not use this unless you really need to.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_file_permissions
--
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
