Bug 1052393

Scratch: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6400516

-- Looking for mesa source code - not found, cl_khr_gl_sharing will be disabled.

Any explanation?

(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #1)
> Scratch: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6400516
> 
> -- Looking for mesa source code - not found, cl_khr_gl_sharing will be
> disabled.
> 
> Any explanation?
Need mesa-debuginfo for build, but when I'm adding it to BR - mock ignoring it.

(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #1)
> Scratch: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6400516
> 
> -- Looking for mesa source code - not found, cl_khr_gl_sharing will be
> disabled.
> 
> Any explanation?

Looks like it should be built with the Mesa sources. I think resolving this may be postponed (let's file a Bugzilla ticket later, right after the inclusion into Fedora).

I'll review it.

REVIEW:

Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable

- rpmlint is not silent

work ~/Desktop: rpmlint beignet-*
beignet.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US implementaion -> implementation, implementable, supplementation
beignet.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bsically -> basically, classically

^^^ This time these are real issues. Please fix typos.

beignet.src:10: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
beignet.src:46: W: macro-in-comment %setup
beignet.src:46: W: macro-in-comment %{version}

^^^ I don't see these as a blockers. Just fyi - this can be silenced by escaping them with additional "%" sign (e.g. %%{version}, %%{setup}).

beignet.src:63: W: deprecated-grep [u'egrep']

^^^ Looks like false positive.

beignet.src:67: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/beignet/

^^^ I'm afraid that's a blocker. This shold go into %{_libdir}/beignet/ . As for rpath it's ok since it falls into "Rpath for Internal Libraries" case:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Rpath_for_Internal_Libraries

beignet.src: W: invalid-url Source0: beignet-e427b3e.tar.gz

^^^ That's ok for SCM snapshots.

beignet.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US implementaion -> implementation, implementable, supplementation
beignet.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bsically -> basically, classically

^^^ See my notes above.

beignet.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.3-3.e427b3e ['0.3-4.e427b3e.fc21', '0.3-4.e427b3e']

^^^ Please fix %changelog entry.

beignet.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/OpenCL/vendors/intel-beignet.icd

^^^ That's intentional. This file shouldn't be edited by users.

beignet.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/beignet/ocl_stdlib.h

^^^ I don't fully realize OpenCL development workflow, but maybe it's better to move these bits into the devel part?

I mostly concerned about these files:

/usr/lib/beignet/ocl_stdlib.h
/usr/lib/beignet/ocl_stdlib.h.pch

What's the purpose of /usr/lib/beignet/beignet.bc btw? Is this an OpenCL core or something like that?

beignet-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US implementaion -> implementation, implementable, supplementation

^^^ See my notes above.

4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 13 warnings.
work ~/Desktop: 

+ The package is named according to the  Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (LGPLv2 or later)
+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included in %doc.

- The spec file must be written in American English w/o grammar errors. See my notes regarging rpmling issues above.

+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. See koji link above.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
0 No shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's default paths.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
0 The package is not designed to be relocatable.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application.

+/- Almost all header files are stored in a -devel package. See my note about the only C header which is stored in the main package.

0 No static libraries.
0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
0 The package doesn't contain library files without a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so) in some of the dynamic linker's default paths.
+ The -devel package requires the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
0 Not a GUI application.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.


Please fix/comment my notes and I'll finish this.

(In reply to Peter Lemenkov from comment #5)
> REVIEW:
> 
> Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable
> 
> - rpmlint is not silent
> 
> work ~/Desktop: rpmlint beignet-*
> beignet.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US implementaion ->
> implementation, implementable, supplementation
> beignet.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bsically -> basically,
> classically
> 
> ^^^ This time these are real issues. Please fix typos.
Fixed.
> beignet.src:10: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
> beignet.src:46: W: macro-in-comment %setup
> beignet.src:46: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
> 
> ^^^ I don't see these as a blockers. Just fyi - this can be silenced by
> escaping them with additional "%" sign (e.g. %%{version}, %%{setup}).
Unlike for me.
> beignet.src:63: W: deprecated-grep [u'egrep']
> 
> ^^^ Looks like false positive.
Really weird.
> beignet.src:67: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/beignet/
> 
> ^^^ I'm afraid that's a blocker. This shold go into %{_libdir}/beignet/ . As
> for rpath it's ok since it falls into "Rpath for Internal Libraries" case:
> 
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:
> Guidelines#Rpath_for_Internal_Libraries
I've tried to change buildsystem to use libdir, but package isn't useful.
Anyway we can't onetime use x86_64 and i386 packages. But submitted question to upstream.
> beignet.src: W: invalid-url Source0: beignet-e427b3e.tar.gz
> 
> ^^^ That's ok for SCM snapshots.
> 
> beignet.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US implementaion ->
> implementation, implementable, supplementation
> beignet.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bsically ->
> basically, classically
> 
> ^^^ See my notes above.
> 
> beignet.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.3-3.e427b3e
> ['0.3-4.e427b3e.fc21', '0.3-4.e427b3e']
> 
> ^^^ Please fix %changelog entry.
Fixed.
> beignet.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/OpenCL/vendors/intel-beignet.icd
> 
> ^^^ That's intentional. This file shouldn't be edited by users.
> 
> beignet.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
> /usr/lib/beignet/ocl_stdlib.h
> 
> ^^^ I don't fully realize OpenCL development workflow, but maybe it's better
> to move these bits into the devel part?
No. w/o/ this files it doesn't work
> I mostly concerned about these files:
> 
> /usr/lib/beignet/ocl_stdlib.h
> /usr/lib/beignet/ocl_stdlib.h.pch
> 
> What's the purpose of /usr/lib/beignet/beignet.bc btw? Is this an OpenCL
> core or something like that?
yes.
> beignet-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US implementaion
> -> implementation, implementable, supplementation
> 
> ^^^ See my notes above.
> 
> 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 13 warnings.
> work ~/Desktop: 
> 
> + The package is named according to the  Package Naming Guidelines.
> + The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
> %{name}.spec.
> + The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
> + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
> Licensing Guidelines.
> + The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license
> (LGPLv2 or later)
> + The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is
> included in %doc.
> 
> - The spec file must be written in American English w/o grammar errors. See
> my notes regarging rpmling issues above.
> 
> + The spec file for the package is legible.
> + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
> one primary architecture. See koji link above.
> + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
> 0 No need to handle locales.
> 0 No shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's default paths.
> + The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
> 0 The package is not designed to be relocatable.
> + The package owns all directories that it creates.
> + The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
> listings.
> + Permissions on files are set properly.
> + The package consistently uses macros.
> + The package contains code, or permissible content.
> 0 No extremely large documentation files.
> + Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
> application.
> 
> +/- Almost all header files are stored in a -devel package. See my note
> about the only C header which is stored in the main package.
> 
> 0 No static libraries.
> 0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
> 0 The package doesn't contain library files without a suffix (e.g.
> libfoo.so) in some of the dynamic linker's default paths.
> + The -devel package requires the base package using a fully versioned
> dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
> + The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
> 0 Not a GUI application.
> + The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
> packages.
> + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.
> 
> 
> Please fix/comment my notes and I'll finish this.

New SPEC: http://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/beignet.spec
New SRPM: http://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/beignet-0.3-5.e427b3e.fc20.src.rpm

Just fixed also libdir.

New SPEC: http://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/beignet.spec
New SRPM: http://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/beignet-0.3-7.984d680.fc20.src.rpm

Well.

All my patches in upstream[0][1][2], so drop it!

New SPEC: http://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/beignet.spec
New SRPM: http://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/beignet-0.3-8.48f8e5b.fc20.src.rpm

Peter, please do review some faster =)

--
[0]http://cgit.freedesktop.org/beignet/commit/?id=9a94d1fb4db2b7bf98103b6ce7e162363041c878
[1]http://cgit.freedesktop.org/beignet/commit/?id=b63cd9bca17ef948f39454e642f375d1c3b8ca49
[2]http://cgit.freedesktop.org/beignet/commit/?id=48f8e5b1d27436c771175f7d407125c41f00171f

(In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #8)
> Well.
> 
> All my patches in upstream[0][1][2], so drop it!
> 
> New SPEC: http://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/beignet.spec
> New SRPM:
> http://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/beignet-0.3-8.48f8e5b.fc20.
> src.rpm
> 
> Peter, please do review some faster =)
> 
> --
> [0]http://cgit.freedesktop.org/beignet/commit/
> ?id=9a94d1fb4db2b7bf98103b6ce7e162363041c878
> [1]http://cgit.freedesktop.org/beignet/commit/
> ?id=b63cd9bca17ef948f39454e642f375d1c3b8ca49
> [2]http://cgit.freedesktop.org/beignet/commit/
> ?id=48f8e5b1d27436c771175f7d407125c41f00171f

Ok, looks good now. I don't see any other issues so this package is


APPROVED.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: beignet
Short Description: Open source implementation of the OpenCL for Intel GPUs
Owners: ignatenkobrain
Branches: f20
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).

beignet-0.3-8.48f8e5b.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/beignet-0.3-8.48f8e5b.fc20

beignet-0.3-8.48f8e5b.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository.

beignet-0.3-9.48f8e5b.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository.

beignet-0.3-9.48f8e5b.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.