Spec URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/shaderc.spec SRPM URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/shaderc-2017.2-1.fc30.src.rpm Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=29861197 Description: A collection of tools, libraries and tests for shader compilation. Shaderc aims to to provide: - a command line compiler with GCC- and Clang-like usage, for better integration with build systems - an API where functionality can be added without breaking existing clients - an API supporting standard concurrency patterns across multiple operating systems - increased functionality such as file #include support Fedora Account System Username: eclipseo
Taking review.
For some reason fedora-review gets stuck INFO: Processing bugzilla bug: 1632243 INFO: Getting .spec and .srpm Urls from : 1632243 INFO: --> SRPM url: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/shaderc-2017.2-1.fc30.src.rpm INFO: --> Spec url: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/shaderc.spec INFO: Using review directory: /tmp/1632243-shaderc INFO: Downloading .spec and .srpm files INFO: Downloading (Source0): https://github.com/google/shaderc/archive/7a23a01742b88329fb2260eda007172135ba25d4/shaderc-7a23a01.tar.gz INFO: Running checks and generating report INFO: Results and/or logs in: /tmp/1632243-shaderc/results INFO: Build completed INFO: Installing built package(s) INFO: Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Try to run with: -x "CheckOwnDirs"
Looks like I got bit by #1350930: fedora-review runs dnf repoquery in the background, which gets stuck asking for a GPG key import. Lol. I'll do the review tomorrow.
Any luck now?
Sorry, totally slipped my mind. Crazy week. - It appears upstream doesn't really do releases.. where did you see that this is 2017.02? - Please don't use %url in source0. - You should use a patch instead of # We build with system libs, so no third_party code sed -i -e '/third_party/d' \ -e '/build-version/,/COMMENT/d' \ CMakeLists.txt since the sed command can fail silently and you could end up with third_party code. You could also remove the third_party/ directory just to be sure, this also gets rid of BSD licensed files. - I recommend using a trailing / for directories in the %files section, as in %{_includedir}/%{name} - Patch1 comment is misleading # https://github.com/google/shaderc/issues/407 Patch1: 0001-Add-SONAME-version-to-the-library.patch since it is not the source for the patch. Maybe you could submit it as a merge request? - According to README.md there are tests, but they aren't enabled in the package. You should add a %check phase or comment the spec why it is not possible. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: shaderc-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/shaderc-2017.2-1.fc30.x86_64/glslc/src/dependency_info.h shaderc-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/shaderc-2017.2-1.fc30.x86_64/glslc/src/file.h shaderc- debugsource : /usr/src/debug/shaderc-2017.2-1.fc30.x86_64/glslc/src/file_compiler.h shaderc-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/shaderc-2017.2-1.fc30.x86_64/glslc/src/file_includer.h shaderc-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/shaderc-2017.2-1.fc30.x86_64/glslc/src/resource_parse.h shaderc-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/shaderc-2017.2-1.fc30.x86_64/glslc/src/shader_stage.h shaderc-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/shaderc-2017.2-1.fc30.x86_64/libshaderc/include/shaderc/shaderc.h shaderc-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/shaderc-2017.2-1.fc30.x86_64/libshaderc/src/shaderc_private.h shaderc-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/shaderc-2017.2-1.fc30.x86_64/libshaderc_util/include/libshaderc_util/compiler.h shaderc-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/shaderc-2017.2-1.fc30.x86_64/libshaderc_util/include/libshaderc_util/counting_includer.h shaderc-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/shaderc-2017.2-1.fc30.x86_64/libshaderc_util/include/libshaderc_util/file_finder.h shaderc-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/shaderc-2017.2-1.fc30.x86_64/libshaderc_util/include/libshaderc_util/format.h shaderc-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/shaderc-2017.2-1.fc30.x86_64/libshaderc_util/include/libshaderc_util/io.h shaderc-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/shaderc-2017.2-1.fc30.x86_64/libshaderc_util/include/libshaderc_util/message.h shaderc-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/shaderc-2017.2-1.fc30.x86_64/libshaderc_util/include/libshaderc_util/mutex.h shaderc-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/shaderc-2017.2-1.fc30.x86_64/libshaderc_util/include/libshaderc_util/resources.h shaderc-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/shaderc-2017.2-1.fc30.x86_64/libshaderc_util/include/libshaderc_util/shader_stage.h shaderc-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/shaderc-2017.2-1.fc30.x86_64/libshaderc_util/include/libshaderc_util/spirv_tools_wrapper.h shaderc-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/shaderc-2017.2-1.fc30.x86_64/libshaderc_util/include/libshaderc_util/string_piece.h shaderc-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/shaderc-2017.2-1.fc30.x86_64/libshaderc_util/include/libshaderc_util/version_profile.h See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: These BR are not needed: gcc-c++ See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 - ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. Note: /sbin/ldconfig not called in libshaderc See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Shared_Libraries All of the above are obsolete behavior, so they're fine. ===== 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. [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. License is Apache v2.0 i.e. ASL 2.0 [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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. [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 51200 bytes in 5 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]: 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]: Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if present. Note: Package has .a files: libshaderc-static. [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. [?]: Package functions as described. [?]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [?]: 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]: 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: glslc-2017.2-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm libshaderc-2017.2-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm libshaderc-devel-2017.2-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm libshaderc-static-2017.2-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm shaderc-debuginfo-2017.2-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm shaderc-debugsource-2017.2-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm shaderc-2017.2-1.fc30.src.rpm glslc.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary glslc libshaderc.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) shader -> shared, shade, shadier libshaderc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US shader -> shared, shade, shadier libshaderc.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libshaderc_shared.so.1 exit.5 libshaderc-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US shader -> shared, shade, shadier libshaderc-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libshaderc-static.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) shader -> shared, shade, shadier libshaderc-static.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US shader -> shared, shade, shadier libshaderc-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation shaderc.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) shader -> shared, shade, shadier shaderc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US shader -> shared, shade, shadier 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 11 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: shaderc-debuginfo-2017.2-1.fc30.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 shaderc-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/google/shaderc <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> libshaderc-static.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) shader -> shared, shade, shadier libshaderc-static.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US shader -> shared, shade, shadier libshaderc-static.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/google/shaderc <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> libshaderc-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation libshaderc.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) shader -> shared, shade, shadier libshaderc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US shader -> shared, shade, shadier libshaderc.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/google/shaderc <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> libshaderc.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libshaderc_shared.so.1 exit.5 libshaderc-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US shader -> shared, shade, shadier libshaderc-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/google/shaderc <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> libshaderc-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation glslc.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/google/shaderc <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> glslc.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary glslc shaderc-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/google/shaderc <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 15 warnings. Requires -------- shaderc-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libshaderc-static (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libshaderc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libSPIRV-Tools-opt.so()(64bit) libSPIRV-Tools.so()(64bit) 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) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libshaderc-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libshaderc(x86-64) libshaderc_shared.so.1()(64bit) glslc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libSPIRV-Tools-opt.so()(64bit) libSPIRV-Tools.so()(64bit) 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) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) shaderc-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- shaderc-debugsource: shaderc-debugsource shaderc-debugsource(x86-64) libshaderc-static: libshaderc-static libshaderc-static(x86-64) libshaderc: libshaderc libshaderc(x86-64) libshaderc_shared.so.1()(64bit) libshaderc-devel: libshaderc-devel libshaderc-devel(x86-64) glslc: glslc glslc(x86-64) shaderc-debuginfo: shaderc-debuginfo shaderc-debuginfo(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/google/shaderc/archive/7a23a01742b88329fb2260eda007172135ba25d4/shaderc-7a23a01.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 496c2a45e5f3da2dd5a97d982fa5c7848d15143be42a4536fc28cb09c2e641dd CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 496c2a45e5f3da2dd5a97d982fa5c7848d15143be42a4536fc28cb09c2e641dd Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -v -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1632243 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
(In reply to Susi Lehtola from comment #6) > - Please don't use %url in source0. Can you show me the guideline that prohibits the use of %url macro?
(In reply to Susi Lehtola from comment #6) > Sorry, totally slipped my mind. Crazy week. > > - It appears upstream doesn't really do releases.. where did you see that > this is 2017.02? > It's based on the Changelog: https://github.com/google/shaderc/commit/7a23a01742b88329fb2260eda007172135ba25d4#diff-e4eb329834da3d36278b1b7d943b3bc9 > - Please don't use %url in source0. > Huh? Why? It is rather recommended to use %url. > - You should use a patch instead of > # We build with system libs, so no third_party code > sed -i -e '/third_party/d' \ > -e '/build-version/,/COMMENT/d' \ > CMakeLists.txt > since the sed command can fail silently and you could end up with > third_party code. You could also remove the third_party/ directory just to > be sure, this also gets rid of BSD licensed files. > I'll see what I can do. > - I recommend using a trailing / for directories in the %files section, as in > %{_includedir}/%{name} > Ok > - Patch1 comment is misleading > # https://github.com/google/shaderc/issues/407 > Patch1: 0001-Add-SONAME-version-to-the-library.patch > since it is not the source for the patch. Maybe you could submit it as a > merge request? > I'll do a PR. > - According to README.md there are tests, but they aren't enabled in the > package. You should add a %check phase or comment the spec why it is not > possible. > The building of tests are explicitly disabled because they don't work with our unbundling of 3rd party. See https://github.com/google/shaderc/issues/470 I'll add a comment explaining it. Spec URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/shaderc.spec SRPM URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/shaderc-2017.2-1.fc30.src.rpm
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #8) > > - Please don't use %url in source0. > > > Huh? Why? It is rather recommended to use %url. Where? It's not used in e.g. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL and it makes the spec file harder to read. This is the first time I've ever seen the %url macro used. The savings you get from using it are marginal; it's just nicer to see the whole path. If you want to use macros, then you could also write URL: https://github.com/google/%{name} but I think you agree that this is just annoying, even though it evaluates to the same in the binary rpm. Anyway, that's more of a style issue. Package shaderc APPROVED.
(In reply to Susi Lehtola from comment #9) > (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #8) > > > - Please don't use %url in source0. > > > > > Huh? Why? It is rather recommended to use %url. > > Where? It's not used in e.g. I also prefer to use %{url} (but with the braces) as Sources are often full of macros already. (and I'm using spectool --gf *.spec to fetch the sources anyway). But I'm against using %{name} everwhere as it's often harder to read. Also most of the time, the use of the %name macro is wrong because it describes the package name, not the project name. Theses are not the same in the case of a compat-foo package. Thx for the review anyway. @Robert-André I'm about to need shaderc for the libplacebo update to 0.6 I still wonder if it can be done for f29, in this case, please consider to submit an override tag once the package is introduced in f29. Thx in advance.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/shaderc
shaderc-2017.2-1.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-5e151169a9
shaderc-2017.2-1.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-093319cdc6
shaderc-2017.2-1.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 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-2018-093319cdc6
shaderc-2017.2-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 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-2018-5e151169a9
shaderc-2018.0-1.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-0fd985af0c
shaderc-2018.0-1.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-4787ebb509
shaderc-2018.0-1.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 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-2018-0fd985af0c
shaderc-2018.0-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 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-2018-4787ebb509
shaderc-2018.0-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
shaderc-2018.0-1.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.