Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mkrupcale/build2/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00864172-build2/build2.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mkrupcale/build2/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00864172-build2/build2-0.9.0-1.fc30~bootstrap.src.rpm Description: build2 is an open source (MIT), cross-platform build toolchain for developing and packaging C++ code. It is a hierarchy of tools that includes the build system, package dependency manager (for package consumption), and project dependency manager (for project development). Key features: * Next-generation, Cargo-like integrated build toolchain for C++. * Covers entire project life cycle: creation, development, testing, and delivery. * Uniform and consistent interface across all platforms and compilers. * Fast, multi-threaded build system with parallel building and testing. * Archive and version control-based package repositories. * Dependency-free, all you need is a C++ compiler. Fedora Account System Username: mkrupcale This is my first package, and I will need a sponsor. I have successfully built on both F29 and rawhide COPR[1] as well as run through fedora-review and tried to rectify as many packaging issues as I could. Some potential issues: - Bundling libodb. This is somewhat necessary to build bpkg and bdep along with build2, since they depend on the yet un-released ODB 2.5.0, and ODB itself depends on build2. Once build2 has been packaged and the official ODB 2.5.0 release is made, the Fedora version of libodb (currently 2.4.0) can be updated, and this libodb bundling for bpkg and bdep can be disabled easily (through `%bcond_with bundle_libodb`). - Unversioned so-files (libbutl-0.9.so and libbpkg-0.9.so). These shared libraries currently do not use the libtool versioning format but rather a platform-independent (major.minor) version scheme. Upstream has been made aware of this preference for platform-dependent versioning[2,3]. Other comments: - Patches are already upstream and will be part of the next official release. - There are several e.g. `Requires: git` for build2 and other subpackages because they are invoked as subprocesses during runtime execution. [1] https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/mkrupcale/build2/build/864172/ [2] private email communication, 2018-10-17 [3] https://lists.build2.org/archives/users/2019-February/000586.html
Package looks mostly good. - %{_prefix}/share/doc/ → %{_docdir} - Licenses should be placed in %{_defaultlicensedir}/%{name} When you specify an absolute path with %license, it doesn't copy the files. So either manually move the files in %install, or patch the install scripts, or use relative paths to locate the LICENSE files.
(%{_defaultlicensedir} is /usr/share/licenses)
Created attachment 1540776 [details] Build.log on Rawhide The program doesn't compile on Rawhide. The list of errors is very long.
Heh it's working in Koji but not my local yet clean mock. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33168751
- Got some GPLv2 and BSD in there: *No copyright* GPL (v2) ----------------------- build2-toolchain-0.9.0/libodb-2.5.0-b.11/LICENSE build2-toolchain-0.9.0/libodb-sqlite-2.5.0-b.11/LICENSE BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License --------------------------------- build2-toolchain-0.9.0/build2-0.9.0/libbutl-0.9.0/libbutl/sha256c.c build2-toolchain-0.9.0/build2-0.9.0/libbutl-0.9.0/libbutl/strptime.c build2-toolchain-0.9.0/build2-0.9.0/libbutl-0.9.0/libbutl/timelocal.c build2-toolchain-0.9.0/build2-0.9.0/libbutl-0.9.0/libbutl/timelocal.h BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License --------------------------------------- build2-toolchain-0.9.0/build2-0.9.0/libbutl-0.9.0/libbutl/sha1.c Please add them to the License: field and add a comment explaining the license breakdown. - These files should be utf-8: build2-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/build2/build2-build-system-manual-a4.ps build2-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/build2/build2-build-system-manual-letter.ps Please fix them in %prep. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", "Expat License", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GPL (v2)". 1844 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/build2/review- build2/licensecheck.txt [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 112640 bytes in 17 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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 build2-doc , libbutl , libbutl-devel , libbpkg , libbpkg-devel , bpkg- doc , bdep-doc , build2-debuginfo , build2-debugsource [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: 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. [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]: 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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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: build2-0.9.0-1.fc31~bootstrap.x86_64.rpm build2-doc-0.9.0-1.fc31~bootstrap.noarch.rpm libbutl-0.9.0-1.fc31~bootstrap.x86_64.rpm libbutl-devel-0.9.0-1.fc31~bootstrap.x86_64.rpm libbpkg-0.9.0-1.fc31~bootstrap.x86_64.rpm libbpkg-devel-0.9.0-1.fc31~bootstrap.x86_64.rpm bpkg-0.9.0-1.fc31~bootstrap.x86_64.rpm bpkg-doc-0.9.0-1.fc31~bootstrap.noarch.rpm bdep-0.9.0-1.fc31~bootstrap.x86_64.rpm bdep-doc-0.9.0-1.fc31~bootstrap.noarch.rpm build2-rpm-macros-0.9.0-1.fc31~bootstrap.noarch.rpm build2-debuginfo-0.9.0-1.fc31~bootstrap.x86_64.rpm build2-debugsource-0.9.0-1.fc31~bootstrap.x86_64.rpm build2-0.9.0-1.fc31~bootstrap.src.rpm build2.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) toolchain -> tool chain, tool-chain, Chaitin build2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US toolchain -> tool chain, tool-chain, Chaitin build2.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.9.0-1 ['0.9.0-1.fc31~bootstrap', '0.9.0-1.fc31~bootstrap'] build2-doc.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C build2 documentation build2-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/build2/build2-build-system-manual-a4.ps build2-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/build2/build2-build-system-manual-letter.ps libbutl.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C build2 utility library libbpkg.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C build2 package dependency manager library bpkg.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C build2 package dependency manager bpkg-doc.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C bpkg documentation bpkg-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/bpkg/build2-package-manager-manual-a4.ps bpkg-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/bpkg/build2-package-manager-manual-letter.ps bdep.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C build2 project dependency manager bdep-doc.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C bdep documentation build2-rpm-macros.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C build2 RPM macros build2-rpm-macros.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib build2-rpm-macros.noarch: W: no-documentation build2.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) toolchain -> tool chain, tool-chain, Chaitin build2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US toolchain -> tool chain, tool-chain, Chaitin 14 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 19 warnings.
Thanks for the prompt review. (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1) > Package looks mostly good. > > - %{_prefix}/share/doc/ → %{_docdir} > > - Licenses should be placed in %{_defaultlicensedir}/%{name} When you > specify an absolute path with %license, it doesn't copy the files. So either > manually move the files in %install, or patch the install scripts, or use > relative paths to locate the LICENSE files. Done[1]. (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #3) > Created attachment 1540776 [details] > Build.log on Rawhide > > The program doesn't compile on Rawhide. The list of errors is very long. Strange. These look like they have to do with libstdc++ and not build2. (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #4) > Heh it's working in Koji but not my local yet clean mock. > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33168751 That's interesting. I'm not sure what the difference is compared to local mock, but I also don't encounter these errors in COPR rawhide. (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #5) > - Got some GPLv2 and BSD in there: > > *No copyright* GPL (v2) > ----------------------- > build2-toolchain-0.9.0/libodb-2.5.0-b.11/LICENSE > build2-toolchain-0.9.0/libodb-sqlite-2.5.0-b.11/LICENSE > > BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License > --------------------------------- > build2-toolchain-0.9.0/build2-0.9.0/libbutl-0.9.0/libbutl/sha256c.c > build2-toolchain-0.9.0/build2-0.9.0/libbutl-0.9.0/libbutl/strptime.c > build2-toolchain-0.9.0/build2-0.9.0/libbutl-0.9.0/libbutl/timelocal.c > build2-toolchain-0.9.0/build2-0.9.0/libbutl-0.9.0/libbutl/timelocal.h > > BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License > --------------------------------------- > build2-toolchain-0.9.0/build2-0.9.0/libbutl-0.9.0/libbutl/sha1.c > > > Please add them to the License: field I believe the BSD license is listed under the libbutl{,-devel,-static} subpackages, which I believe are the only packages using BSD licensed code. The Licensing guidelines[2] don't appear to distinguish the short-names between BSD 3-clause and 2-clause. Is this proper? The case of the libodb license is a little more complicated. These are linked (currently statically due to the bundling) with the bpkg and bdep packages. Both of these packages state in their licenses[3,4] that they are exempt from the usual ODB licensing with the intention of allowing bpkg and bdep to be MIT-licensed[5]. I have been in contact with upstream[6], who is the author of both ODB and build2, about this matter, and I believe their intention is to allow bpkg and bdep to be purely MIT licensed rather than e.g. "MIT and GPLv2". Having read the exception, I believe this is possible provided that we do not modify the GPLv2 ODB code, but I'm not an expert on this matter. What do you suggest in this case? > and add a comment explaining the license breakdown. Done for libbutl[1]. > - These files should be utf-8: > > build2-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 > /usr/share/doc/build2/build2-build-system-manual-a4.ps > build2-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 > /usr/share/doc/build2/build2-build-system-manual-letter.ps > > Please fix them in %prep. Done[1]. [1] https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mkrupcale/build2/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00864655-build2/build2.spec [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#Good_Licenses [3] https://git.build2.org/cgit/bpkg/tree/LICENSE [4] https://git.build2.org/cgit/bdep/tree/LICENSE [5] https://git.codesynthesis.com/cgit/odb/odb-etc/tree/license-exceptions/build2-odb-license-exception.txt [6] private email communication, 2018-10-17
Seems everything is good, package is approved. You still need to find a sponsor.
I've sponsored Matthew. Please feel free to continue the process at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Add_Package_to_Source_Code_Management_.28SCM.29_system_and_Set_Owner If you have any questions at all feel free to mail me or ask in mailing lists or irc...
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/build2
FEDORA-2019-17d1334a4b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-17d1334a4b
build2-0.11.0-1.fc30~bootstrap has been pushed to the Fedora 30 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-2019-17d1334a4b
build2-0.11.0-1.fc30~bootstrap has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.