Bug 2255751
| Summary: | Review Request: perfetto - System profiling, app tracing and trace analysis | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Davide Cavalca <davide> | ||||
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Neal Gompa <ngompa13> | ||||
| Status: | ASSIGNED --- | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> | ||||
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |||||
| Priority: | unspecified | ||||||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | ngompa13, package-review | ||||
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | ngompa13:
fedora-review?
|
||||
| Target Release: | --- | ||||||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||||||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||||||
| URL: | https://perfetto.dev/ | ||||||
| Whiteboard: | |||||||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |||||
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||
| Last Closed: | Type: | --- | |||||
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- | ||||
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |||||
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |||||
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |||||
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |||||
| Embargoed: | |||||||
| Bug Depends On: | |||||||
| Bug Blocks: | 2255875 | ||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||
|
Description
Davide Cavalca
2023-12-24 15:47:14 UTC
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=110787234 Perfetto is a complicated beast and this is the minimum viable packaging I could put together. Notable issues: - ExclusiveArch is because the "bespoke" build system this thing uses only works on arches that Android supports (despite not actually targeting Android when doing a Linux build) - libperfetto.so is unversioned; I couldn't find a sane way to fix the soname (or even where it's configured in the first place) - traced_perf doesn't build and is disabled - unittests require a bundled copy of googletests that isn't actually bundled and fail to build, so they're disabled; integration tests require debugfs and perform active tracing, so they're not appropriate for a distro package - the UI isn't packaged, but one can just use https://ui.perfetto.dev - docs, examples, tools and Python bindings are not packaged Taking this review. Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6812701 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2255751-perfetto/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06812701-perfetto/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_devel_packages Please know that there can be false-positives. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string. Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/perfetto/perfetto.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/perfetto/perfetto-40.0-1.fc40.src.rpm Changelog: - package the SDK as well Created attachment 2005969 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 6812701 to 6815981
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6815981 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2255751-perfetto/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06815981-perfetto/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - perfetto-sdk : /usr/share/perfetto/sdk/perfetto.h Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_devel_packages - Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_devel_packages Please know that there can be false-positives. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string. It occurs to me that both this package and another one I was looking at just now (https://github.com/charles-lunarg/vk-bootstrap) have an interesting conundrum. In both cases a "library" is shipped as a header + cpp file, with the explicit goal that the consumer will include and link these directly as part of their build. In the latest iteration of perfetto I ship these in %{_datadir}/%{name}/sdk, but perhaps %{_libdir} would be more appropriate? As while these aren't arched per-se, their consumers would definitely be (and header-only packages are arched, and are probably the closest to this). |