Bug 2036468

Taking this review.

Initial spec review:

> Source0:	https://github.com/rui314/mold/archive/refs/tags/v%{version}.tar.gz

Please use proper SourceURL form as proscribed in the Guidelines: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_git_tags

In this case, that'd be "%{url}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz"

> export CFLAGS="%{optflags}"
> export CXXFLAGS="%{optflags}"

CFLAGS should be set to "%{build_cflags}" and CXXFLAGS should be set to "%{build_cxxflags}".

Alternatively, you can just use "%set_build_flags" here.

> ln -sf ../../bin/mold %{buildroot}%{_libexecdir}/mold/ld

What is this? Wouldn't "ln -sr %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/mold %{buildroot}%{_libexecdir}/mold/ld" make more sense here?

> %post
> %{_sbindir}/update-alternatives --install %{_bindir}/ld ld %{_bindir}/ld.mold 1

This should probably only run on initial install rather than unconditionally.

> %check
> %make_build %{build_args} test

If this is doing compilation, you probably want "%set_build_flags" here too before running the "make check" command.

> %{_mandir}/man1/mold.1.gz

This should be "%{_mandir}/man1/mold.1*" as you can't guarantee we won't change from gzip compression in the future.

> %autosetup -n mold-%{version} -p1

This can be simplified to "%autosetup -p1"

Thanks for the review! I've updated the .spec and .src.rpm files at the above URLs.

> Alternatively, you can just use "%set_build_flags" here.
`%set_build_flags` doesn't seem to work - it looks like the flags aren't propagated to the bundled TBB. I've changed the `export`s as requested; that doesn't cause any troubles.

(We need the bundled TBB since Fedora's tbb package is too old and API-incompatible. See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2036372 for details.)

> If this is doing compilation, you probably want "%set_build_flags" here too before running the "make check" command.
It doesn't, so I would leave it out.

By the way, there are two topics on which I'm not quite sure:
1. mold defaults to being compiled with Clang; the .spec forces the compiler to GCC. That's standard procedure according to https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#compiler, right? As far as I'm aware, there are no technical reasons why this package would work better if compiled with Clang.
2. I had to override `strip` with `echo` to prevent the debug info from being stripped away. This feels a bit hacky; is it considered acceptable nonetheless? The alternative would be to patch the Makefile.

(In reply to Christoph Erhardt from comment #4)
> Thanks for the review! I've updated the .spec and .src.rpm files at the
> above URLs.
> 
> > Alternatively, you can just use "%set_build_flags" here.
> `%set_build_flags` doesn't seem to work - it looks like the flags aren't
> propagated to the bundled TBB. I've changed the `export`s as requested; that
> doesn't cause any troubles.
> 
> (We need the bundled TBB since Fedora's tbb package is too old and
> API-incompatible. See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2036372
> for details.)
> 

Add some information about bundled TBB, per the guidelines: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#bundling

> > If this is doing compilation, you probably want "%set_build_flags" here too before running the "make check" command.
> It doesn't, so I would leave it out.
> 
> By the way, there are two topics on which I'm not quite sure:
> 1. mold defaults to being compiled with Clang; the .spec forces the compiler
> to GCC. That's standard procedure according to
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#compiler, right?
> As far as I'm aware, there are no technical reasons why this package would
> work better if compiled with Clang.

Yeah, seems fine to me.

> 2. I had to override `strip` with `echo` to prevent the debug info from
> being stripped away. This feels a bit hacky; is it considered acceptable
> nonetheless? The alternative would be to patch the Makefile.

That's fine, I've seen other packages do that.

Alright! I've updated the files again.
* Added bundling metadata
* Removed unused bundled libraries in %prep

The .spec file (along with its history) is now also available at https://github.com/sicherha/fedora-mold.

So, I had been working on packaging mold for Fedora over the past few days (hence why I opened that bug against tbb for an update), and there are quite a few things that I had to fix in patches/tests that you don't appear to have in the spec file.

I have a version of my spec file on my copr (under my username imcinerney), so you can download the spec and srpm to see the differences. But essentially, I have had to patch the makefile to fix the issue with flags not passing to the bundled libraries, patch the bundled tbb cmake to fix an issue with it trying to remove flags from the build fedora wants, to run the tests I had to add a build requires for clang (but keep the main compiler as gcc) since the test scripts all hardcode clang, and patch and remove several tests to make them work on Fedora since we don't ship static libraries for libc/libc++.

It isn't fully finished yet, since I haven't dealt with the libexec file yet (and I have a patch to the makefile locally to fix the strip issue that I haven't put into the srpm).

Thanks Ian! The test dependencies are indeed something I have missed since I was building the package locally. I have updated my `BuildRequires:` accordingly. Fedora does ship static libraries for glibc and libstdc++, but some test scripts also require glibc(x86-32).

Not sure why it works here without having to patch the Makefiles. Maybe it's because I pass `CC=gcc CXX=g++` directly as arguments to `%make_build`.

I've now set up a project on Copr: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/sicherha/fedora/package/mold/
Unsurprisingly, the build currently works only for x86_64 because the other architectures do not ship glibc(x86-32). The EPEL builds fail because mimalloc-devel is not available. We may want to conditionally use the bundled mimalloc there.

But, how to yum install the glibc-static(x86-32) ?

jmiao@fedora35:mold$ sudo yum install glibc-static
Last metadata expiration check: 2:22:25 ago on Mon 03 Jan 2022 01:50:17 AM EST.
Package glibc-static-2.34-11.fc35.x86_64 is already installed.
Dependencies resolved.
Nothing to do.
Complete!
jmiao@fedora35:mold$ 
jmiao@fedora35:mold$ sudo yum install glibc-stati*.x86_32
Last metadata expiration check: 2:22:48 ago on Mon 03 Jan 2022 01:50:17 AM EST.
No match for argument: glibc-stati*.x86_32
Error: Unable to find a match: glibc-stati*.x86_32



If i build, there are BuildRequires error:
jmiao@fedora35:mold$ rpmbuild -ba mold.spec 

setting SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH=1640995200
error: Failed build dependencies:
	glibc-static(x86-32) is needed by mold-1.0.1-1.fc35.x86_64

(In reply to Christoph Erhardt from comment #8)
> 
> I've now set up a project on Copr:
> https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/sicherha/fedora/package/mold/
> Unsurprisingly, the build currently works only for x86_64 because the other
> architectures do not ship glibc(x86-32). The EPEL builds fail because
> mimalloc-devel is not available. We may want to conditionally use the
> bundled mimalloc there.

You could request mimalloc to be branched for EPEL 9. It already exists in EPEL 8.

Jun, you need to install the package `glibc-static.i686`.

> Jun, you need to install the package `glibc-static.i686`.
> BuildRequires:  glibc-static(x86_32)
BuildRequires:  glibc-static.i686

In this case, we can yum glibc32 according to the Failed build dependencies to install, like following:
jmiao@fedora35:fedora-mold$ rpmbuild -ba mold.spec 
setting SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH=1640995200
error: Failed build dependencies:

	glibc-static.i686 is needed by mold-1.0.1-1.fc35.x86_64

Otherwise, like some one don`t know Its name(glibc-static.i686) to yum.

The `.i686` suffix notation seems to be specific to yum/dnf; rpmbuild doesn't know what to do with it. `BuildRequires: glibc-static(x86-32)` is the only notation I have found to work.

A summary of the current status.

epel7, epel8
------------
Fails to build due to unsatisfied `BuildRequires: gcc-c++ >= 10`. Nothing we can do, I guess.

epel9
-----
Fails to build due to unsatisfied `BuildRequires: mimalloc-devel`. Tracked in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2036686.

f34, f35, rawhide
-----------------
Builds on x86_64 and aarch64. I have excluded the other architectures because mold can currently produce binaries for elf_x86_64, elf_i386 and aarch64linux only - so it probably doesn't make much sense to ship it on other architectures.
The testsuite fails on aarch64 with a failed assertion; I'm investigating this.

Looking at the build log for the x86_64 build on COPR, the Fedora flags still aren't being passed into the bundled tbb build process. For instance this is one of the build commands it is executing:

[  3%] Building CXX object src/tbb/CMakeFiles/tbb.dir/address_waiter.cpp.o
cd /builddir/build/BUILD/mold-1.0.1/out/tbb/src/tbb && /usr/bin/g++ -D__TBB_BUILD -D__TBB_USE_ITT_NOTIFY -I/builddir/build/BUILD/mold-1.0.1/third-party/tbb/src/tbb/../../include -D__TBB_DYNAMIC_LOAD_ENABLED=0 -O2 -g -DNDEBUG -flifetime-dse=1 -Wall -Wextra -Wfatal-errors -mrtm -mwaitpkg -pthread -std=c++11 -MD -MT src/tbb/CMakeFiles/tbb.dir/address_waiter.cpp.o -MF CMakeFiles/tbb.dir/address_waiter.cpp.o.d -o CMakeFiles/tbb.dir/address_waiter.cpp.o -c /builddir/build/BUILD/mold-1.0.1/third-party/tbb/src/tbb/address_waiter.cpp

which is missing all the -Werror=format-security and other Fedora flags. To fix this I think you will need patches 0 and 1 from the srpm I posted. The main reason this happens (even with you setting the CLFAGS/CXXFLAGS variables) is that the mold makefile will actually use -DCMAKE_CXX_FLAGS when building the bundled tbb, and that option ignores the CXXFLAGS environment variable and only uses the ones specified in the CMake command line. I am not actually sure why it isn't throwing an error about linking PIE code with non-PIE code though, because it looks like tbb is not using the -fPIE flag in its build.

You're right; I've added your patches.

The (first) test that fails on aarch64 is one where mold is invoked directly from a shell script.

When a linker is launched indirectly via the compiler driver, the latter tells it about the desired emulation (e.g. `-m elf_x86_64` or `-m aarch64linux`). But since mold is called directly here - without `-m` - it falls back to its default behaviour: assuming `elf_x86_64`.

Here's what other linkers do:
ld.bfd and ld.gold seem to get their default emulation hardcoded at build time.
ld.lld is clever and detects the emulation from the input file(s).

Until mold adopts either the bfd/gold way or the lld way, the only path I see right now would be to patch all test scripts where mold gets invoked directly.

I think this is ready for another round of review.

mold now builds successfully for x86_64 and aarch64 on f34, f35 and rawhide; support for epel9 will be added once mimalloc has been pushed to stable.

(In reply to Christoph Erhardt from comment #14)
> A summary of the current status.
> 
> epel7, epel8
> ------------
> Fails to build due to unsatisfied `BuildRequires: gcc-c++ >= 10`. Nothing we
> can do, I guess.

Actually, there is. You can use

BuildRequires: devtoolset-10-gcc-c++

instead of plain

BuildRequires: gcc-c++

and then add

. /opt/rh/devtoolset-10/enable

at the beginning of %build and %check, if applicable.

See my existing binaryen[1] package for a recent example.

[1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/binaryen/blob/epel7/f/binaryen.spec

For EPEL7, you'd BR "devtoolset-10-toolchain" and put ". /opt/rh/devtoolset-10/enable" at the beginning of %build (and %install and %check as needed).

For EPEL8, you'd BR "gcc-toolset-10-toolchain" and put ". /opt/rh/gcc-toolset-10/enable" instead.

Thanks for the tips! With an additional patch backported from upstream, mold now builds on epel8. New status:

epel7
-----
Fails to build due to unsatisfied `BuildRequires: mimalloc-devel`. Is there sufficient interest in mold on epel7 to make branching mimalloc-devel worthwhile?

epel8, epel9, f34, f35, rawhide
-------------------------------
Builds successfully on x86_64 and aarch64; other architectures are excluded because mold can't produce native binaries for them.

Correction: the testsuite isn't green yet on epel8 x86_64; at least one unit test still fails. I'm investigating this...

Opened upstream issue for failed test on epel8: https://github.com/rui314/mold/issues/270

I need some guidance here. :-)

Rui is amazingly reactive and has fixed the aforementioned issue. Unfortunately, the resulting two upstream patches are not easy to backport because a fair amount of refactoring has happened since 1.0.1.

How should we deal with this situation?
a) Move forward to a Git snapshot.
b) Stay with 1.0.1 for now, accepting that mold won't be available on epel8 x86_64 until 1.0.2.
c) Invest effort into backporting the fix - Debian/RHEL-style, as it were.

I'd probably go with 1.0.1. EPEL8 can wait a little.(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #20)
> For EPEL7, you'd BR "devtoolset-10-toolchain" and put ".
> /opt/rh/devtoolset-10/enable" at the beginning of %build (and %install and
> %check as needed).
> 
> For EPEL8, you'd BR "gcc-toolset-10-toolchain" and put ".
> /opt/rh/gcc-toolset-10/enable" instead.

That's very useful advice. Is it documented in EPEL docs? I couldn't find it.

(In reply to Christoph Erhardt from comment #24)
[...]
> How should we deal with this situation?
> a) Move forward to a Git snapshot.
> b) Stay with 1.0.1 for now, accepting that mold won't be available on epel8
> x86_64 until 1.0.2.
> c) Invest effort into backporting the fix - Debian/RHEL-style, as it were.

I'd go with b) . EPEL8 can wait a little while in my opinion, unless you have
some users that are waiting for EPEL8 build right now.

(In reply to Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski from comment #25)
> I'd probably go with 1.0.1. EPEL8 can wait a little.(In reply to Neal Gompa
> from comment #20)
> > For EPEL7, you'd BR "devtoolset-10-toolchain" and put ".
> > /opt/rh/devtoolset-10/enable" at the beginning of %build (and %install and
> > %check as needed).
> > 
> > For EPEL8, you'd BR "gcc-toolset-10-toolchain" and put ".
> > /opt/rh/gcc-toolset-10/enable" instead.
> 
> That's very useful advice. Is it documented in EPEL docs? I couldn't find it.

This is not documented anywhere, as far as I know. Someone should document it for EPEL packaging guidelines. :)

(In reply to Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski from comment #26)
> (In reply to Christoph Erhardt from comment #24)
> [...]
> > How should we deal with this situation?
> > a) Move forward to a Git snapshot.
> > b) Stay with 1.0.1 for now, accepting that mold won't be available on epel8
> > x86_64 until 1.0.2.
> > c) Invest effort into backporting the fix - Debian/RHEL-style, as it were.
> 
> I'd go with b) . EPEL8 can wait a little while in my opinion, unless you have
> some users that are waiting for EPEL8 build right now.

I'd recommend just doing Fedora and EPEL 9 for now as well, unless you have a *really* compelling reason to do EPEL 8 immediately.

(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #27)
> I'd recommend just doing Fedora and EPEL 9 for now as well, unless you have
> a *really* compelling reason to do EPEL 8 immediately.

I don't - it's just sort of a gamification thing where one seeks to get as many green check marks in Copr as possible. ;-) Let's dispense with epel8 support for the time being, then.

Barring further review feedback, I would consider this package to be in reasonably good shape.

Thanks for doing this. I have been packaging it in https://github.com/ktdreyer/mold-rpm so we can experiment with this for Ceph builds.

Is master working completely for you on all platforms now? I'm sure you could ask Rui to tag 1.0.2 upstream. This application is moving incredibly fast upstream at the moment, and 1.0.1 lacks many things.

mold 1.0.2 was released earlier today; I have updated the package accordingly.

[Sorry for wasting a fair amount of Copr processor time in the process - but I needed to pinpoint a show-stopping aarch64 bug without having physical access to aarch64 hardware. The resulting upstream bug report and patch are here: https://github.com/rui314/mold/issues/298]

New status: everything working fine on epel8, epel9, f34, f35 and rawhide for x86_64 and aarch64.

Packages for other architectures remain held back until mold becomes capable of producing native binaries for them.

Posting this to make fedora-review stop choking...

Spec URL: https://www4.cs.fau.de/~erhardt/foo/mold/mold.spec
SRPM URL: https://www4.cs.fau.de/~erhardt/foo/mold/mold-1.0.2-1.fc35.src.rpm

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated



===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: 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]: 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", "GNU Affero General Public License,
     Version 3", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0",
     "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (3 clause) Apache License 2.0", "MIT License
     Apache License 2.0 [generated file]", "bzip2 and libbzip2 License
     v1.0.6 Apache License 2.0". 571 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in /home/ngompa/2036468-mold/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/mold, /usr/libexec/mold
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/libexec/mold,
     /usr/lib64/mold
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[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.
[-]: 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]: 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 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]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[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]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
     Note: %define requiring justification: %define build_args
     PREFIX=%{_prefix} LIBDIR=%{_libdir} CC=gcc CXX=g++
     CFLAGS="%{build_cflags}" CXXFLAGS="%{build_cxxflags}"
     LDFLAGS="%{build_ldflags}" STRIP=echo SYSTEM_MIMALLOC=1
     SYSTEM_XXHASH=1
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: mold-1.0.2-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm
          mold-debuginfo-1.0.2-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm
          mold-debugsource-1.0.2-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm
          mold-1.0.2-1.fc36.src.rpm
mold.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lld -> LLD, ll, led
mold.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US linkers -> linker, liners, clinkers
mold.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.0.1-1 ['1.0.2-1.fc36', '1.0.2-1']
mold.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/mold/mold-wrapper.so
mold.x86_64: W: non-executable-in-bin /usr/bin/ld 0
mold.x86_64: E: non-readable /usr/bin/ld 0
mold.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ld.mold
mold.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ld64.mold
mold.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ld -> ls, l, d
mold.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lld -> LLD, ll, led
mold.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US linkers -> linker, liners, clinkers
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 10 warnings.




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: mold-debuginfo-1.0.2-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Unversioned so-files
--------------------
mold: /usr/lib64/mold/mold-wrapper.so

Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/rui314/mold/archive/v1.0.2/mold-1.0.2.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 1a5c4779d10c6c81d21092ea776504f51e6a4994121f536550c60a8e7bb6a028
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1a5c4779d10c6c81d21092ea776504f51e6a4994121f536550c60a8e7bb6a028


Requires
--------
mold (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/sh
    /usr/sbin/update-alternatives
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libcrypto.so.3()(64bit)
    libcrypto.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.4)(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libmimalloc.so.2.0()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.11)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.13)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.3)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit)
    libxxhash.so.0()(64bit)
    libz.so.1()(64bit)
    libz.so.1(ZLIB_1.2.0)(64bit)
    libz.so.1(ZLIB_1.2.2)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

mold-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

mold-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
mold:
    bundled(tbb)
    mold
    mold(x86-64)

mold-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    mold-debuginfo
    mold-debuginfo(x86-64)

mold-debugsource:
    mold-debugsource
    mold-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2036468 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic
Disabled plugins: R, Python, SugarActivity, fonts, Java, Haskell, Perl, PHP, Ocaml
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

I have uploaded a new revision that fixes most of the remarks.

There's one failure I seem unable to fix because the build fails on rawhide if I replace `%define` with `%global`:
[!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
     Note: %define requiring justification: %define build_args
     PREFIX=%{_prefix} LIBDIR=%{_libdir} CC=gcc CXX=g++
     CFLAGS="%{build_cflags}" CXXFLAGS="%{build_cxxflags}"
     LDFLAGS="%{build_ldflags}" STRIP=echo SYSTEM_MIMALLOC=1
     SYSTEM_XXHASH=1
The build error in question looks as follows - note the incomplete path; it should be `/builddir/build/BUILD/mold-1.0.2/.package_note-mold-1.0.2-1.fc36.x86_64.ld`:
/usr/bin/ld: cannot open linker script file /builddir/build/BUILD/.package_note-mold-1.0.2-1.fc36.x86_64.ld: No such file or directory

Concerning rpmlint, I'm unsure how to get these two messages fixed:
mold.x86_64: E: non-readable /usr/bin/ld 0
mold.x86_64: W: non-executable-in-bin /usr/bin/ld 0

(In reply to Christoph Erhardt from comment #34)
> I have uploaded a new revision that fixes most of the remarks.
> 
> There's one failure I seem unable to fix because the build fails on rawhide
> if I replace `%define` with `%global`:
> [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
>      Note: %define requiring justification: %define build_args
>      PREFIX=%{_prefix} LIBDIR=%{_libdir} CC=gcc CXX=g++
>      CFLAGS="%{build_cflags}" CXXFLAGS="%{build_cxxflags}"
>      LDFLAGS="%{build_ldflags}" STRIP=echo SYSTEM_MIMALLOC=1
>      SYSTEM_XXHASH=1
> The build error in question looks as follows - note the incomplete path; it
> should be
> `/builddir/build/BUILD/mold-1.0.2/.package_note-mold-1.0.2-1.fc36.x86_64.ld`:
> /usr/bin/ld: cannot open linker script file
> /builddir/build/BUILD/.package_note-mold-1.0.2-1.fc36.x86_64.ld: No such
> file or directory
> 

Don't worry about it. I'm fine with that.

> Concerning rpmlint, I'm unsure how to get these two messages fixed:
> mold.x86_64: E: non-readable /usr/bin/ld 0
> mold.x86_64: W: non-executable-in-bin /usr/bin/ld 0

That's a result of alternatives, I believe?

You should swap "%{_bindir}/ld" in the file list for "%ghost %{_bindir}/ld"

(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #35)
> (In reply to Christoph Erhardt from comment #34)
> > Concerning rpmlint, I'm unsure how to get these two messages fixed:
> > mold.x86_64: E: non-readable /usr/bin/ld 0
> > mold.x86_64: W: non-executable-in-bin /usr/bin/ld 0
> 
> That's a result of alternatives, I believe?
> 
> You should swap "%{_bindir}/ld" in the file list for "%ghost %{_bindir}/ld"

Nevermind, you're already doing that. Don't worry about it.

I think we're in good shape now, so...

PACKAGE APPROVED.

I've just sponsored you in to the Fedora Packagers group. Congratulations and welcome to the Fedora Project! :)

(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mold

Do you plan to package it for f35 too?

FEDORA-2022-91d495a875 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-91d495a875

FEDORA-2022-9d509237d2 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-9d509237d2

FEDORA-EPEL-2022-645ee918d6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-645ee918d6

FEDORA-2022-91d495a875 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2022-9d509237d2 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-EPEL-2022-645ee918d6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.