Spec URL: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/libcxx.spec SRPM URL: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/libcxx-20160502-2.svn268289.fc24.src.rpm Description: libc++ is a new implementation of the C++ standard library, targeting C++11. Fedora Account System Username: spot Note: Upstream has no versioning system that I can see, does no 'releases'. I need this package to support C++11 in R in EPEL. Also note, this package has a bootstrap cycle with libcxxabi.
libcxx was released together with LLVM. The versioned tarball can be found here: http://llvm.org/releases/3.8.0/libcxx-3.8.0.src.tar.xz
(In reply to Robin Lee from comment #1) > libcxx was released together with LLVM. The versioned tarball can be found > here: > http://llvm.org/releases/3.8.0/libcxx-3.8.0.src.tar.xz Thanks! I'll fix that immediately.
New Spec: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/libcxx.spec New SRPM: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/libcxx-3.8.0-2.fc24.src.rpm Technically, I should have put an epoch here, but since it is SUPER unlikely anyone besides me and maybe Robin used the previous svn-based package, I left it out.
The package builds on Fedora 24, but not any earlier versions. On Fedora 22/23, if _FORTIFY_SOURCE is used (the default), it fails to build[1]. So if this package is getting to Fedora 22/23, you may have to remove _FORTIFY_SOURCE or build it with GCC. [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1188075
It is uglier than that. Removing _FORTIFY_SOURCE makes it build a bit farther, but clang 3.7.0 (f23) just crashes all over itself.
A few scratch builds later, this is the build matrix: clang gcc EL6 Yes No EL7 No Yes F22 No Yes F23 No Yes F24 Yes Yes F25 Yes Yes Since we really do want to use clang here when we can, I've conditionalized accordingly. I also do not care about EL5 at this point. :) New SRPM: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/libcxx-3.8.0-3.fc24.src.rpm New SPEC: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/libcxx.spec
- I see this warning on Fedora 25 64bit: -- Found LLVM_CONFIG as /usr/bin/llvm-config CMake Warning at cmake/Modules/HandleOutOfTreeLLVM.cmake:46 (message): Not found: /builddir/build/BUILD/llvm-3.8.0.src Call Stack (most recent call first): cmake/Modules/HandleOutOfTreeLLVM.cmake:67 (find_llvm_parts) CMakeLists.txt:37 (include) CMake Warning at CMakeLists.txt:39 (message): UNSUPPORTED LIBCXX CONFIGURATION DETECTED: llvm-config not found and LLVM_PATH not defined. Reconfigure with -DLLVM_CONFIG=path/to/llvm-config or -DLLVM_PATH=path/to/llvm-source-root. On 64 bit systems, llvm-config looks not available; it's llvm-config-64. - Flags for hardened_builds are not used with clang. - Why do you not perform tests ?
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #7) > - I see this warning on Fedora 25 64bit: > > -- Found LLVM_CONFIG as /usr/bin/llvm-config > CMake Warning at cmake/Modules/HandleOutOfTreeLLVM.cmake:46 (message): > Not found: /builddir/build/BUILD/llvm-3.8.0.src > Call Stack (most recent call first): > cmake/Modules/HandleOutOfTreeLLVM.cmake:67 (find_llvm_parts) > CMakeLists.txt:37 (include) > CMake Warning at CMakeLists.txt:39 (message): > UNSUPPORTED LIBCXX CONFIGURATION DETECTED: llvm-config not found and > LLVM_PATH not defined. > Reconfigure with -DLLVM_CONFIG=path/to/llvm-config or > -DLLVM_PATH=path/to/llvm-source-root. > > On 64 bit systems, llvm-config looks not available; it's llvm-config-64. Yes, but alternatives makes a symlink to llvm-config, so it is safe to always call that. > - Flags for hardened_builds are not used with clang. Yes, but they're also safely ignored by clang. > - Why do you not perform tests ? Couldn't figure out how to run them, think it might require a full llvm source tree.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== Issues ===== - /usr/include/c++ should be co-owned with libstdc++-devel. - rpmlint shows various 'undefined-non-weak-symbol' warnings. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so 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: "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 5265 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/1332307-libcxx/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [-]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/include/c++(libstdc++-devel) [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. (hardened_build flags safely ignored by clang) [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. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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 10240 bytes in 2 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]: 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]: 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]: 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 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]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libcxx- debuginfo [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: 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. [-]: %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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== 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: libcxx-3.8.0-3.fc25.x86_64.rpm libcxx-devel-3.8.0-3.fc25.x86_64.rpm libcxx-debuginfo-3.8.0-3.fc25.x86_64.rpm libcxx-3.8.0-3.fc25.src.rpm libcxx.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libc -> lib, lib c libcxx-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib libcxx-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libcxx.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libc -> lib, lib c 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libcxx-debuginfo-3.8.0-3.fc25.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory libcxx.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libc -> lib, lib c libcxx.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libc++.so.1.0 __cxa_pure_virtual libcxx.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libc++.so.1.0 vtable for __cxxabiv1::__class_type_info libcxx.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libc++.so.1.0 vtable for __cxxabiv1::__vmi_class_type_info libcxx.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libc++.so.1.0 vtable for __cxxabiv1::__si_class_type_info libcxx.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libc++.so.1.0 __gxx_personality_v0 libcxx.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libc++.so.1.0 __cxa_end_catch libcxx.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libc++.so.1.0 __cxa_allocate_exception libcxx.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libc++.so.1.0 __cxa_guard_release libcxx.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libc++.so.1.0 __cxa_begin_catch libcxx.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libc++.so.1.0 __cxa_rethrow libcxx.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libc++.so.1.0 __cxa_throw libcxx.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libc++.so.1.0 __cxa_guard_abort libcxx.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libc++.so.1.0 __cxa_call_unexpected libcxx.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libc++.so.1.0 __cxa_free_exception libcxx.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libc++.so.1.0 __cxa_guard_acquire libcxx.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libc++.so.1.0 /lib64/libm.so.6 libcxx.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libc++.so.1.0 /lib64/librt.so.1 libcxx-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib libcxx-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 20 warnings. Requires -------- libcxx (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libcxx-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc++.so.1()(64bit) libcxx(x86-64) libcxx-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- libcxx: libc++.so.1()(64bit) libcxx libcxx(x86-64) libcxx-devel: libcxx-devel libcxx-devel(x86-64) libcxx-debuginfo: libcxx-debuginfo libcxx-debuginfo(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- http://llvm.org/releases/3.8.0/libcxx-3.8.0.src.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 36804511b940bc8a7cefc7cb391a6b28f5e3f53f6372965642020db91174237b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 36804511b940bc8a7cefc7cb391a6b28f5e3f53f6372965642020db91174237b Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1332307 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
- /usr/include/c++ should be co-owned with libstdc++-devel ... and it is! The weak symbols are okay to ignore. They're all in libcxxabi.
(In reply to Tom "spot" Callaway from comment #10) > - /usr/include/c++ should be co-owned with libstdc++-devel > > ... and it is! Yes, explicitely I meant. > > The weak symbols are okay to ignore. They're all in libcxxabi. Okay. Package approved.
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #11) > (In reply to Tom "spot" Callaway from comment #10) > > - /usr/include/c++ should be co-owned with libstdc++-devel > > > > ... and it is! > > Yes, explicitely I meant. I'm not sure what you mean there, but you approved the package. :) Thanks for the review!
(In reply to Tom "spot" Callaway from comment #12) > (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #11) > > (In reply to Tom "spot" Callaway from comment #10) > > > - /usr/include/c++ should be co-owned with libstdc++-devel > > > > > > ... and it is! > > > > Yes, explicitely I meant. > > I'm not sure what you mean there, but you approved the package. :) Thanks > for the review! %dir /usr/include/c++ /usr/include/c++/v1/
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #13) > %dir /usr/include/c++ > /usr/include/c++/v1/ %{_includedir}/c++/ is identical to %dir %{_includedir}/c++ %{_includedir}/c++/v1/
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/libcxx
libcxx-3.8.0-3.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-0146d17f3b
libcxx-3.8.0-3.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-4224792a98
libcxx-3.8.0-3.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-70a8dcb27f
libcxx-3.8.0-3.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-280808acac
libcxx-3.8.0-3.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-9f912a4d07
libcxx-3.8.0-3.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-4224792a98
libcxx-3.8.0-3.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-0146d17f3b
libcxx-3.8.0-3.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-70a8dcb27f
libcxx-3.8.0-3.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-280808acac
libcxx-3.8.0-3.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-9f912a4d07
libcxx-3.8.0-4.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-916f868a7c
libcxx-3.8.0-4.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-916f868a7c
libcxx-3.8.0-3.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
libcxx-3.8.0-3.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
libcxx-3.8.0-3.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
libcxx-3.8.0-3.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
libcxx-3.8.0-4.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.