Bug 485417

> Summary:        Portable x86 PC emulator

Is bochs-bios a "portable x86 PC emulator"?

> Patch0:	0001_bx-qemu.patch

I hope this doesn't break any guidelines on naming patches. I think using the package name as a prefix for patch file names is good practice, even if not explicitly required by Fedora.

> mkdir -p prebuilt
> cd prebuilt
> tar -xzf %{SOURCE1}

You can probably use %setup here, with magic parameters to make it create prebuilt/ and unpack only %{SOURCE1} inside it.

> %install

rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Prepping_BuildRoot_For_.25install

Reviews: see bug #464621 for a review of similar package (etherboot)

wrt setup: Maybe we could use it, but what would it buy us?
the rpm directives seem to be quite arcane, I believe this is much cleaner.

Updated:

http://glommer.fedorapeople.org/bochs-bios-2.3.8-0.2.git36989b0d2.fc11.src.rpm
http://glommer.fedorapeople.org/bochs-bios.spec

I'll review it

404 while trying to download Source0 from SF. Please provide spec file with such obvious issues fixed.

Ok, I have uploaded new spec and SRPM
Please note that in this package, we don't see a way out of the binaries,
as it does not depend only on dev86. Part of it is compiled with gcc, aiming at the target platform. As we don't have a cross compilation infrastructure, there's not too much we can do.

spec: http://glommer.fedorapeople.org/bochs-bios.spec
srpm: 
http://glommer.fedorapeople.org/bochs-bios-2.3.8-0.3.git36989b0d2.fc11.src.rpm

Peter, comments on this one?

Taking for review ...

I patched the spec file (see comment 13), so this review
refers to the patched package.

Koji scratch build:

  http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1208731

+ rpmlint output

bochs-bios.x86_64: E: no-binary

We can ignore this error - rpmlint doesn't recognise the binary.

+ package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines
+ specfile name matches the package base name
+ package should satisfy packaging guidelines
+ license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora
+ license matches the actual package license
  LGPLv2+
+ %doc includes license file
+ spec file written in American English
+ spec file is legible
+ upstream sources match sources in the srpm

  Verified by checking out Bochs sources from upstream git.

+ package successfully builds on at least one architecture
n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed
+ BuildRequires list all build dependencies
n/a %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/*
n/a binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun
n/a does not use Prefix: /usr
+ package owns all directories it creates
+ no duplicate files in %files
+ %defattr line
+ %clean contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
+ consistent use of macros
+ package must contain code or permissible content
n/a large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage
+ files marked %doc should not affect package
n/a header files should be in -devel
n/a static libraries should be in -static
n/a packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig'
n/a libfoo.so must go in -devel
n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base
n/a packages should not contain libtool .la files
n/a packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file
n/a packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages
+ %install must start with rm -rf %{buildroot} etc.
+ filenames must be valid UTF-8

Optional:

n/a if there is no license file, packager should query upstream
n/a translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if available
+ reviewer should build the package in mock
+ the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures
+ review should test the package functions as described
n/a scriptlets should be sane
n/a pkgconfig files should go in -devel
+ shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or /usr/sbin

Created attachment 333604 [details]
Updated bochs-bios.spec

Created attachment 333605 [details]
Patch to bochs-bios.spec from release 0.3 to release 0.6.

This patch shows the differences between release 0.3
and release 0.6.

Note that you will have to rename %{SOURCE1} in your
SOURCES directory, because I removed the release part
from the name of this file.

---------------------------
This package (release 0.6) is APPROVED by rjones
---------------------------

Unfortunately, the package in its current state doesn't change much in the current situation with prebuilt files in qemu rpm.. It just drops blobs into the main repository as qemu did before.

I tried to rebuild this package with different compilers (pcc, tinycc), but with no success so far. I still think that we should add i386-gcc on every non-x86 arch before submitting this title.

I don't understand comment 16.  This package builds from source
on %{ix86} and x86_64.  It doesn't build from source on non-x86
builders, simply because they lack the required cross-compiler.

If Koji did something sensible with:
  ExclusiveArch: %{ix86} x86_64
  BuildArch: noarch
then we could even build properly on Koji and create a noarch
package.  The fact that it doesn't is just a bug in Koji.

If so, then you should open (if still not opened by someone) bug against koji and mark it as blocker for this ticket.

As far as I know, there is work in progress in koji to make the noarch trick possible.

But I don't think it is a blocker for this package. But be sure we'll switch to it as soon as koji supports it.

Please understand that currently, we ship binaries in qemu that we don't build _at all_. This is a big liability, so this package, while not perfect, is a _huge_ step forward.

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: bochs-bios
Short Description: bios for bochs/qemu projects
Owners: glommer
Branches: f-11
InitialCC: virt-maint

To totally settle down in the binaries issue, koji now finally supports
noarch subpackages.

I've uploaded a new:

http://glommer.fedorapeople.org/bochs-bios-2.3.8-0.4.git36989b0d2.fc11.src.rpm
http://glommer.fedorapeople.org/bochs-bios.spec

that uses no binaries at all.

cvs done (except for cc to virt-maint).

Can CC to fedora-virt-maint be late added? (since I got it wrong in the initial review)

I don't see a way to do it myself in packagedb.

Kevin,

We requested this package because it included pre-built binaries, and to comply with Fedora policies, we'd have to build it twice.

With koji recently added features, we can actually build bochs-bios from within bochs package as a noarch subpackage(done a scratch build of it today).

So given this, what is the preferred path? Get rid of the newly created rpm and use a bochs-bios package created from bochs? Or keep it, and have bochs to depend on it?

Appreciated.

Yeah, I would say if you can do it with an existing package we should just drop this one. 

It's up to you however, if you think it's good to seperate the two.

Should I go through the normal package EOL here, or can we do it an easier way since it was not in any release yet?

Since packages have been built in koji (even though they haven't been released), I'd rather we go through the package EOL procedure.  Mark as dead.package, etc.

glauber: any progress on EOL-ing this?

To the best of my knowledge, this is EOLd already.

Yeah, you're right:

http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/devel/bochs-bios/