Bug 2137116

Summary:	Review Request: xbyak - A C++ JIT assembler for x86
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Tom Rix <trix>
Component:	Package Review	Assignee:	Benson Muite <benson_muite>
Status:	CLOSED RAWHIDE	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	rawhide	CC:	benson_muite, kwizart, package-review
Target Milestone:	---	Flags:	benson_muite: fedora-review+
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2023-01-08 20:01:48 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Tom Rix 2022-10-23 15:19:03 UTC

Spec URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/xbyak.spec
SRPM URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/xbyak-6.63-1.fc38.src.rpm
Description:
Xbyak is a C++ header library that enables dynamically to assemble x86(IA32), x64(AMD64, x86-64) mnemonic.
                                                                                                                        The pronunciation of Xbyak is kəi-bja-k. It is named from a Japanese word 開闢, which means the beginning of the world.

Fedora Account System Username: trix

Comment 1 Tom Rix 2022-10-23 15:30:02 UTC

xbyak is a third party program in the onednn package
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/onednn
https://github.com/oneapi-src/oneDNN/blob/master/THIRD-PARTY-PROGRAMS

it is also used in openvino
https://github.com/openvinotoolkit/openvino/blob/master/licensing/third-party-programs.txt
see line 406

Programs should not have to carry around private copies of these header files.
So make them available generally

Comment 2 Benson Muite 2022-10-23 19:05:13 UTC

Should the samples also be packaged?
Should a test section be added, see the workflow file:
https://github.com/herumi/xbyak/blob/master/.github/workflows/main.yml

Comment 3 Benson Muite 2022-10-23 19:07:28 UTC

nasm is available https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/nasm/nasm/

Comment 4 Benson Muite 2022-10-23 19:38:16 UTC

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

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



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

C/C++:
[x]: Header 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 License", "*No copyright*
     BSD 3-Clause License". 118 files have unknown license. Detailed output
     of licensecheck in
     /home/reviews/Xbyak/2137116-xbyak/licensecheck.txt
[?]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/include/xbyak
[?]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/include/xbyak
[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.
[!]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[?]: 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:
[-]: 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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[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]: 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.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

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

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 31, packages: 1

 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/herumi/xbyak/archive/refs/tags/v6.63.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 16c60f0682502624115c4dc9fec66782ae68ef32e469946f50cd169179ea92bb
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 16c60f0682502624115c4dc9fec66782ae68ef32e469946f50cd169179ea92bb


Requires
--------
xbyak-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
xbyak-devel:
    xbyak-devel



Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2137116
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Haskell, Ocaml, Java, SugarActivity, fonts, Python, C/C++, PHP, R, Perl, Ruby
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Comments:
a) Please add tests
b) Should the license filed in the spec file be "BSD-3-Clause" https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/allowed-licenses/
c) Check directory ownership
d) Header only libraries are usually packaged as static libraries https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_packaging_header_only_libraries

Comment 5 Tom Rix 2022-10-24 19:36:59 UTC

Updated for outstanding comments

Spec URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/xbyak.spec
SRPM URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/xbyak-6.63-2.fc38.src.rpm

Only testing issue was a test for handling a alloc exception in xbyak also triggered a freed twice exception in glibc.

Comment 6 Benson Muite 2022-10-25 06:12:17 UTC

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

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



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

C/C++:
[x]: Header 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 License", "*No copyright*
     BSD 3-Clause License". 118 files have unknown license. Detailed output
     of licensecheck in
     /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/Xbyak/2137116-xbyak/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: 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.
[!]: 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 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]: 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:
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[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]: 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.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

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

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 31, packages: 1

xbyak-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/xbyak/sample/cpuid/tnt.txt /usr/share/xbyak/sample/cpuid/glm.txt:/usr/share/xbyak/sample/cpuid/glp.txt
xbyak-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/xbyak/sample/cpuid/icx.txt /usr/share/xbyak/sample/cpuid/icl.txt
xbyak-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/xbyak/sample/cpuid/tmp.txt /usr/share/xbyak/sample/cpuid/spr.txt
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/herumi/xbyak/archive/refs/tags/v6.63.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 16c60f0682502624115c4dc9fec66782ae68ef32e469946f50cd169179ea92bb
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 16c60f0682502624115c4dc9fec66782ae68ef32e469946f50cd169179ea92bb


Requires
--------
xbyak-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/bash



Provides
--------
xbyak-devel:
    xbyak-devel
    xbyak-static



Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2137116
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Perl, Ruby, Python, C/C++, R, Ocaml, fonts, Java, SugarActivity, Haskell, PHP
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Comments:
a) There is a lint warning which can be ignored:
$ rpmlint xbyak-devel-6.63-2.fc38.noarch.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.2.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 32, packages: 1

xbyak-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license BSD-3-Clause
xbyak-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/xbyak/sample/cpuid/tnt.txt /usr/share/xbyak/sample/cpuid/glm.txt:/usr/share/xbyak/sample/cpuid/glp.txt
xbyak-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/xbyak/sample/cpuid/icx.txt /usr/share/xbyak/sample/cpuid/icl.txt
xbyak-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/xbyak/sample/cpuid/tmp.txt /usr/share/xbyak/sample/cpuid/spr.txt
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.7 s 
b) When running tests, there are some warnings, maybe these should be reported upstream:
./test_nm.sh Y
yasm(32bit)
compile make_nm.cpp with -Wall -fno-operator-names -I../ -DUSE_YASM -DXBYAK32
asm
a.asm:324: warning: value does not fit in signed 8 bit field
a.asm:325: warning: value does not fit in signed 8 bit field
a.asm:326: warning: value does not fit in signed 8 bit field
a.asm:327: warning: value does not fit in signed 8 bit field
a.asm:331: warning: value does not fit in 16 bit field
a.asm:332: warning: value does not fit in 16 bit field

./test_nm.sh Y64
yasm(64bit)
compile make_nm.cpp with -Wall -fno-operator-names -I../ -DUSE_YASM -DXBYAK64
asm
a.asm:1029: warning: `es' segment register ignored in 64-bit mode
a.asm:1030: warning: `es' segment register ignored in 64-bit mode
a.asm:1031: warning: `es' segment register ignored in 64-bit mode
a.asm:1032: warning: `es' segment register ignored in 64-bit mode
a.asm:1033: warning: `es' segment register ignored in 64-bit mode
a.asm:1034: warning: `es' segment register ignored in 64-bit mode
a.asm:1035: warning: `es' segment register ignored in 64-bit mode
a.asm:1036: warning: `es' segment register ignored in 64-bit mode
a.asm:1045: warning: `ss' segment register ignored in 64-bit mode
a.asm:1046: warning: `ss' segment register ignored in 64-bit mode
a.asm:1047: warning: `ss' segment register ignored in 64-bit mode
a.asm:1048: warning: `ss' segment register ignored in 64-bit mode
a.asm:1049: warning: `ss' segment register ignored in 64-bit mode
a.asm:1050: warning: `ss' segment register ignored in 64-bit mode
a.asm:1051: warning: `ss' segment register ignored in 64-bit mode
a.asm:1052: warning: `ss' segment register ignored in 64-bit mode
a.asm:1053: warning: `ds' segment register ignored in 64-bit mode
a.asm:1054: warning: `ds' segment register ignored in 64-bit mode
a.asm:1055: warning: `ds' segment register ignored in 64-bit mode
a.asm:1056: warning: `ds' segment register ignored in 64-bit mode
a.asm:1057: warning: `ds' segment register ignored in 64-bit mode
a.asm:1058: warning: `ds' segment register ignored in 64-bit mode
a.asm:1059: warning: `ds' segment register ignored in 64-bit mode
a.asm:1060: warning: `ds' segment register ignored in 64-bit mode
a.asm:1082: warning: value does not fit in signed 8 bit field
a.asm:1083: warning: value does not fit in signed 8 bit field
a.asm:1084: warning: value does not fit in signed 8 bit field
a.asm:1085: warning: value does not fit in signed 8 bit field
a.asm:1089: warning: value does not fit in 16 bit field
a.asm:1090: warning: value does not fit in 16 bit field
c) Correct functionality assumed based on tests
d) Seems ok. Package Approved.

Comment 7 Tomas Hrcka 2022-10-26 14:09:38 UTC

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

Comment 8 Benson Muite 2022-11-15 19:06:49 UTC

Would you be able to review:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143005

Comment 9 Tom Rix 2022-11-21 05:18:30 UTC

yes