+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #1006197 +++ Stockfish is a free UCI chess engine derived from Glaurung 2.1. It is not a complete chess program, but requires some UCI compatible GUI (like XBoard with PolyGlot, eboard, Arena, Sigma Chess, Shredder, Chess Partner or Fritz) in order to be used comfortably. Read the documentation for your GUI of choice for information about how to use Stockfish with your GUI. Original RFE: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820796
Spec URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/chess/stockfish/stockfish.spec SRPM URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/chess/stockfish/stockfish-6-1.20150131gitb331768.fc21.src.rpm Description: Powerful open source chess engine Fedora Account System Username: raphgro rawhide scratch: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9075402
Taken :)
Prior to review some questions and notes: * Are you sure, that you're packaging the correct stockfish? You're using the git from mcostalba. The git mentioned on stockfish homepage is https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish * Are there problems with the official release 6 or why are you packaging the snapshot? * In my first run of fedora-review I got WARNING: Cannot download url: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/master/AUTHORS#/stockfish-AUTHORS * I haven't looked into detail yet, but it seems that the Makefile doesn't honor the compiler flags. Result: -debuginfo package looks wrong, for example no source inside. Greetings, Christian
(In reply to Christian Dersch from comment #3) > Prior to review some questions and notes: > * Are you sure, that you're packaging the correct stockfish? You're using > the git from mcostalba. The git mentioned on stockfish homepage is > https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish Honestly, I do not know. There are currently 405 forks available ... https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/network > * Are there problems with the official release 6 or why are you packaging > the snapshot? See above. The mcostalba branch was in the original review (bug #1006197). > * In my first run of fedora-review I got WARNING: Cannot download url: > https://raw.githubusercontent.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/master/ > AUTHORS#/stockfish-AUTHORS This seems to be a generated file and must be accessed manually. Maybe github blocks bots for this. > * I haven't looked into detail yet, but it seems that the Makefile doesn't > honor the compiler flags. Result: -debuginfo package looks wrong, for > example no source inside. Well, then we should implement our own build system, maybe cmake or ninja/Shinobi?
Notes: - Upstream has also a newer c++ branch. Maybe we should try that one? - GitHub seems to be slow nowadays. Try the links more than once, otherwise you will get warnings about 404 or the like.
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #5) - Upstream has also a newer c++11 branch. Maybe we should try that one?
Spec URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/chess/stockfish/stockfish.spec SRPM URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/chess/stockfish/stockfish-6-2.20150226git8a2c413.fc21.src.rpm rawhide scratch: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9100110
It seems we are hitting this bug with official-stockfish: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62099
Makefile strongly ignores Fedoras compiler flags, so imho it violates https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags Please fix (try to cooperate with upstream) this before we can go on with the review.
Okay, I'll implement cmake. For that, we need cmake support in leveldb, see bug #1197370.
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #10) > … we need cmake support in leveldb … NO! This is wrong. Confused with polyglot, sorry for that noise.
SPEC: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/chess/stockfish/stockfish.spec SRPM: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/chess/stockfish/stockfish-6-3.20150228git1e6d21d.fc21.src.rpm rawhide scratch: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9109620 Well, cmake was too easy to implement, maybe for upstream also but refused my patch for unknown reason. Chapeau to cmake! GCC5 bug is magically gone, dunno why. * Sun Mar 01 2015 Raphael Groner <projects.rg> - 6-3.20150228git1e6d21d - implement cmake - harden gcc5 - latest commit from upstream
Review done :) Package looks quite good now, especially the fixed usage of compilerflags and the -debuginfo is fine now thanks to your cmake approach. But there is one thing you have to fix before I can approve: * Fix the ownership of dir /etc/stockfish Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - 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 %doc. Note: Cannot find Copying.txt in rpm(s) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text ***** False positive, package uses %license macro as recommended now ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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: "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/review/1196373-stockfish/licensecheck.txt [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /etc/stockfish ***** Please fix this! [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/stockfish ***** Same here [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. ***** Thank you for the cmake approach [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 3 files. [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]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: No %config files under /usr. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag Note: Could not download Source1: https://raw.githubusercontent.com /official-stockfish/Stockfish/master/AUTHORS#/stockfish-AUTHORS, Source4: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mpurland/stockfish/master/polyglot.ini #/stockfish-polyglot.ini See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags ***** False positive, files are downloadable [-]: 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. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [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]: 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: stockfish-6-3.20150228git1e6d21d.fc23.x86_64.rpm stockfish-6-3.20150228git1e6d21d.fc23.src.rpm stockfish.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US eboard -> board, aboard, e board stockfish.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US eboard -> board, aboard, e board 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. ***** False positives Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- stockfish (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): config(stockfish) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.4)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- stockfish: config(stockfish) stockfish stockfish(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://bazaar.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-branches/ubuntu/vivid/stockfish/vivid/download/head:/engineinterface.txt-20091204230329-yljoyxocuxhxg1ot-78/engine-interface.txt#/stockfish-interface.txt : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : cda40659c9f047743ebfe8328f8554d7fa2e3587b7f511f102390b6bdcc21e02 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : cda40659c9f047743ebfe8328f8554d7fa2e3587b7f511f102390b6bdcc21e02 https://bazaar.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-branches/ubuntu/vivid/stockfish/vivid/download/head:/stockfish.6-20091204230329-yljoyxocuxhxg1ot-76/stockfish.6 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7a841155caf7c4572f44d13f6d8532ad45d3ce4975fa7700a502761e614ef846 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7a841155caf7c4572f44d13f6d8532ad45d3ce4975fa7700a502761e614ef846 https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/archive/1e6d21dbb6918a2d5f2f09730b0c30e3a4895d5c.tar.gz#/stockfish-1e6d21d.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 79004dc7af68cdb26b03d35ecba7d51d2086c72f2669b982cbbff515404c6aa0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 79004dc7af68cdb26b03d35ecba7d51d2086c72f2669b982cbbff515404c6aa0 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1196373 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
SPEC: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/chess/stockfish/stockfish.spec SRPM: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/chess/stockfish/stockfish-6-4.20150228git1e6d21d.fc21.src.rpm rawhide scratch: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9122664 * Mon Mar 02 2015 Raphael Groner <projects.rg> - 6-4.20150228git1e6d21d - fix Release dist extension - fix ownership of etc/ - add Suggests: polyglot-chess (rhbz#1197333) Christian, thanks for the review!
Approved!
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: stockfish Short Description: Powerful open source chess engine Upstream URL: http://www.stockfishchess.com Owners: raphgro Branches: f21 f22 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
stockfish-6-4.20150228git1e6d21d.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/stockfish-6-4.20150228git1e6d21d.fc21
stockfish-7-0.1.20150302gitcb2111f.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/stockfish-7-0.1.20150302gitcb2111f.fc22
f20 and epel7 builds could be found at Copr: http://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/raphgro/playground/build/80159/ If requested, I can do also an official update.
Newer versions for f20, f21 and epel7 could be found at Copr: http://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/raphgro/playground/build/80159/ If requested, I can do official updates, too.
stockfish-7-0.1.20150302gitcb2111f.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository.
stockfish-7-0.1.20150302gitcb2111f.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository.
stockfish-6-4.20150228git1e6d21d.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.
stockfish-7-0.3.20150506git2e86d1f.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/stockfish-7-0.3.20150506git2e86d1f.fc22
stockfish-7-0.3.20150506git2e86d1f.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/stockfish-7-0.3.20150506git2e86d1f.fc21
stockfish-7-0.3.20150506git2e86d1f.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
stockfish-7-0.3.20150506git2e86d1f.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
*** Bug 1006197 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***