Spec URL: https://people.redhat.com/~mpolacek/tmp/cvise.spec SRPM URL: https://people.redhat.com/~mpolacek/tmp/cvise-1.4.0-0.fc32.src.rpm Description: C-Vise is a super-parallel Python port of the C-Reduce. The port is fully compatible to the C-Reduce and uses the same efficient LLVM-based C/C++ reduction tool named clang_delta. C-Vise is a tool that takes a large C, C++ or OpenCL program that has a property of interest (such as triggering a compiler bug) and automatically produces a much smaller C/C++ or OpenCL program that has the same property. It is intended for use by people who discover and report bugs in compilers and other tools that process C/C++ or OpenCL code. Fedora Account System Username: mpolacek
- Group is not used in Fedora - Consider splitting the BR and RR one per line - You should us the %cmake macro instead of: export CFLAGS="${RPM_OPT_FLAGS}" export CXXFLAGS="${RPM_OPT_FLAGS}" # Fedora says we shouldn't put files in /usr/local/. mkdir objdir && cd objdir && \ cmake .. \ -DCMAKE_INSTALL_LIBEXECDIR=%{_libexecdir} \ -DCMAKE_INSTALL_BINDIR=%{_bindir} \ -DCMAKE_INSTALL_DATADIR=%{_datadir} \ -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=$BUILD_TYPE && \ It sets Fedora build flags and some default. (See rpm --eval "%{cmake}") - make %{?_smp_mflags} VERBOSE=1 → %make_build VERBOSE=1 - Release must start as 1 in Fedora Release: 1%{?dist} - Use a better name for your archive: Source: https://github.com/marxin/cvise/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz - Build fails: DEBUG util.py:621: No matching package to install: 'python3-pebble' It seems python-pebble was not built on Rawhide: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1851120
Thank you so much for the review! (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 from comment #1) > - Group is not used in Fedora Done. > - Consider splitting the BR and RR one per line Done. > - You should us the %cmake macro instead of: > > export CFLAGS="${RPM_OPT_FLAGS}" > export CXXFLAGS="${RPM_OPT_FLAGS}" > # Fedora says we shouldn't put files in /usr/local/. > mkdir objdir && cd objdir && \ > cmake .. \ > -DCMAKE_INSTALL_LIBEXECDIR=%{_libexecdir} \ > -DCMAKE_INSTALL_BINDIR=%{_bindir} \ > -DCMAKE_INSTALL_DATADIR=%{_datadir} \ > -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=$BUILD_TYPE && \ > > > It sets Fedora build flags and some default. (See rpm --eval "%{cmake}") Done. > - make %{?_smp_mflags} VERBOSE=1 → %make_build VERBOSE=1 > > - Release must start as 1 in Fedora Done. > Release: 1%{?dist} > > - Use a better name for your archive: Done. > Source: > https://github.com/marxin/cvise/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz > > - Build fails: > > DEBUG util.py:621: No matching package to install: 'python3-pebble' > > It seems python-pebble was not built on Rawhide: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1851120 This has been fixed. Here's another version of the spec file. Anything else to fix?
Created attachment 1700065 [details] cvise.spec v2 spec
This kills my potato-PC.
- Remove the Rpath: cvise.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/libexec/cvise/clang_delta ['/usr/lib64'] Maybe try -DCMAKE_SKIP_BUILD_RPATH=TRUE first or nuke it with chrpath. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_removing_rpath - %{_libexecdir}/cvise/clex is listed twice Package approved. Please fix the aforementioned issues before import. 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. [!]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Note: See rpmlint output [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) 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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "Boost Software License 1.0", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License". 512 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/cvise/review-cvise/licensecheck.txt [x]: 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. [-]: 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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not 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. [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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: cvise-1.4.0-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm cvise-debuginfo-1.4.0-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm cvise-debugsource-1.4.0-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm cvise-1.4.0-1.fc33.src.rpm cvise.x86_64: W: invalid-url BugURL: https://bugz.fedoraproject.org/cvise HTTP Error 503: Service Temporarily Unavailable cvise.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/libexec/cvise/clang_delta ['/usr/lib64'] cvise.x86_64: W: no-documentation cvise.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cvise cvise.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cvise-delta cvise-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url BugURL: https://bugz.fedoraproject.org/cvise HTTP Error 503: Service Temporarily Unavailable cvise-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url BugURL: https://bugz.fedoraproject.org/cvise HTTP Error 503: Service Temporarily Unavailable 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings.
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 from comment #5) > - Remove the Rpath: > > cvise.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath > /usr/libexec/cvise/clang_delta ['/usr/lib64'] > > Maybe try -DCMAKE_SKIP_BUILD_RPATH=TRUE first or nuke it with chrpath. See > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_removing_rpath -DCMAKE_SKIP_RPATH=TRUE helped: $ readelf -Wd clang_delta # no RPATH > - %{_libexecdir}/cvise/clex is listed twice Fixed. > Package approved. Please fix the aforementioned issues before import. Thanks!
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/cvise
FEDORA-2020-bdcb8a4b8b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-bdcb8a4b8b
FEDORA-2020-bdcb8a4b8b has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-bdcb8a4b8b \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-bdcb8a4b8b See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-bdcb8a4b8b has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.