Spec URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/libdevel/folly.spec SRPM URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/libdevel/folly-2020.10.12.00-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: Folly (acronymed loosely after Facebook Open Source Library) is a library of C++14 components designed with practicality and efficiency in mind. Folly contains a variety of core library components used extensively at Facebook. In particular, it's often a dependency of Facebook's other open source C++ efforts and place where those projects can share code. It complements (as opposed to competing against) offerings such as Boost and of course std. In fact, we embark on defining our own component only when something we need is either not available, or does not meet the needed performance profile. We endeavor to remove things from folly if or when std or Boost obsoletes them. Performance concerns permeate much of Folly, sometimes leading to designs that are more idiosyncratic than they would otherwise be (see e.g. PackedSyncPtr.h, SmallLocks.h). Good performance at large scale is a unifying theme in all of Folly. Fedora Account System Username: salimma
Hi Michel. Please, take care of SeqAn: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1810293
- Please, fix the Changelog. - Why do you leave a 'folly.rpm' just for the License file? - CXXFLAGS should be automatically set by %cmake - Why don't build shared libs instead of static ones? - Fix Version inside 'libfolly.pc' file. - Package successfully does not compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture 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]: 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) [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: "Unknown or generated", "Apache License 2.0", "Expat License", "GNU General Public License (v2)", "zlib/libpng license". 202 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/1887621-folly/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. [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. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [!]: 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 20480 bytes in 3 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [!]: 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 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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: folly-devel. [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. [ ]: 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. [x]: 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. [?]: %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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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 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: folly-2020.10.12.00-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm folly-devel-2020.10.12.00-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm folly-2020.10.12.00-1.fc34.src.rpm folly.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US acronymed -> acronym ed, acronym-ed, acronym folly.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog folly.x86_64: E: no-binary folly.x86_64: W: no-documentation folly-devel.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog folly.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US acronymed -> acronym ed, acronym-ed, acronym folly.src: W: no-version-in-last-changelog 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend. warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend. folly-devel.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog folly-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/facebook/folly <urlopen error [Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution> warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend. folly.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US acronymed -> acronym ed, acronym-ed, acronym folly.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog folly.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/facebook/folly <urlopen error [Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution> folly.x86_64: E: no-binary folly.x86_64: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/facebook/folly/releases/download/v2020.10.12.00/folly-v2020.10.12.00.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0fd5642bf6a7855c58fcb57dcc9f3af27e84bcb6b0564e9644de3acc254efc76 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0fd5642bf6a7855c58fcb57dcc9f3af27e84bcb6b0564e9644de3acc254efc76 Requires -------- folly (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): folly-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config cmake-filesystem cmake-filesystem(x86-64) folly(x86-64) Provides -------- folly: folly folly(x86-64) folly-devel: cmake(folly) folly-devel folly-devel(x86-64) folly-static pkgconfig(libfolly) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1887621 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: Perl, Haskell, fonts, Python, SugarActivity, PHP, Java, Ocaml, R Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Build failed on Rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=53501450 - Package does not compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture
Thanks! About the build failures: - arm7hl: No matching package to install: 'liburing-devel' - s390x: multiple build failures, including some endianness issues: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/1486/53501486/build.log - i686: template-related build failure: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/1482/53501482/build.log I think we may want to exclude these, at least for now -- especially s390x looks like it would require some fairly significant upstream work to properly support. About the static libraries: folly doesn't have a stable ABI, by design, so it doesn't seem useful to build shared libraries for it
https://github.com/facebook/folly/commit/81e350e10b855e5ec48430677bc82d8f7e84015b should fix the i686 build failure
(In reply to Davide Cavalca from comment #4) > > About the static libraries: folly doesn't have a stable ABI, by design, so > it doesn't seem useful to build shared libraries for it There are a couple of issues with not producing shared libraries: * debuginfo subpackages aren't really possible to generate properly with only static libraries * it makes it difficult to track things that need to be rebuilt if folly was updated A suggestion for shared libraries support: you can do something like having the soname change with version bumps to match ABI policy
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/liburing/pull-request/1 should take care of liburing-devel on armv7hl
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #6) > (In reply to Davide Cavalca from comment #4) > > > > About the static libraries: folly doesn't have a stable ABI, by design, so > > it doesn't seem useful to build shared libraries for it > > There are a couple of issues with not producing shared libraries: > > * debuginfo subpackages aren't really possible to generate properly with > only static libraries yeah, debuginfo is disabled for now for folly. Is the concern that packages built against folly also can't have proper debuginfo? > * it makes it difficult to track things that need to be rebuilt if folly was > updated Per policy they're supposed to BR folly-static -- so just searching for those and rebuilding should be fine, right? > > A suggestion for shared libraries support: you can do something like having > the soname change with version bumps to match ABI policy I suppose we can rename the *.so files manually to *.so.%{flattenedversion} - though we will have to patch the build system to allow building both static and dynamic libs in one pass. (In reply to Antonio T. sagitter from comment #2) > - Why do you leave a 'folly.rpm' just for the License file? > Hmm, yes. I was basing this on boost's spec where the license goes into the main package, but without shared libs we might as well only have a -devel/static > - CXXFLAGS should be automatically set by %cmake > I needed to add -fPIC, which is not in the default CXXFLAGS > - Fix Version inside 'libfolly.pc' file. > ack
(In reply to Michel Alexandre Salim from comment #8) > (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #6) > > (In reply to Davide Cavalca from comment #4) > > > > > > About the static libraries: folly doesn't have a stable ABI, by design, so > > > it doesn't seem useful to build shared libraries for it > > > > There are a couple of issues with not producing shared libraries: > > > > * debuginfo subpackages aren't really possible to generate properly with > > only static libraries > > yeah, debuginfo is disabled for now for folly. Is the concern that packages > built against folly also can't have proper debuginfo? > It is potentially problematic, yeah. > > * it makes it difficult to track things that need to be rebuilt if folly was > > updated > > Per policy they're supposed to BR folly-static -- so just searching for > those and rebuilding should be fine, right? > In theory, yes. I don't know if anyone has built any automation for that, though. Most of our automation is built around detecting when the runtime dependency breaks to detect a need for rebuilds. > > > > A suggestion for shared libraries support: you can do something like having > > the soname change with version bumps to match ABI policy > > I suppose we can rename the *.so files manually to *.so.%{flattenedversion} > - though we will have to patch the build system to allow building both > static and dynamic libs in one pass. > You'd want to adjust the build script to set the soversion to match version. Otherwise the generated dependency would be broken or otherwise wrong. You can see an example of how this was done with Google Test (which has similar issues): https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gtest/blob/master/f/gtest-1.8.1-libversion.patch
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #9) > You'd want to adjust the build script to set the soversion to match version. > Otherwise the generated dependency would be broken or otherwise wrong. > > You can see an example of how this was done with Google Test (which has > similar issues): > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gtest/blob/master/f/gtest-1.8.1- > libversion.patch Interesting, it looks like that's overriding PROPERTIES VERSION. Thoughts on doing that vs using OUTPUT_NAME ? From reading https://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/manual/html_node/Updating-version-info.html and https://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/manual/html_node/Release-numbers.html#Release-numbers it sounds like for the case when the ABI changes on every release one should use libtool -release, and apparently its equivalent in cmake land is overriding OUTPUT_NAME to include the version.
(In reply to Davide Cavalca from comment #10) > (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #9) > > You'd want to adjust the build script to set the soversion to match version. > > Otherwise the generated dependency would be broken or otherwise wrong. > > > > You can see an example of how this was done with Google Test (which has > > similar issues): > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gtest/blob/master/f/gtest-1.8.1- > > libversion.patch > > Interesting, it looks like that's overriding PROPERTIES VERSION. Thoughts on > doing that vs using OUTPUT_NAME ? From reading > https://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/manual/html_node/Updating-version-info. > html and > https://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/manual/html_node/Release-numbers. > html#Release-numbers it sounds like for the case when the ABI changes on > every release one should use libtool -release, and apparently its equivalent > in cmake land is overriding OUTPUT_NAME to include the version. Main value of using PROPERTIES VERSION over OUTPUT_NAME is that CMake handles structuring the filename correctly for the target OS for you (e.g. <name>-<version>.dll for Windows and Midipix, lib<name>.<version>.dylib for macOS, lib<name>.so.<version> for Linux/BSD, etc.). My understanding is that OUTPUT_NAME turns all that logic off.
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #11) > Main value of using PROPERTIES VERSION over OUTPUT_NAME is that CMake > handles structuring the filename correctly for the target OS for you (e.g. > <name>-<version>.dll for Windows and Midipix, lib<name>.<version>.dylib for > macOS, lib<name>.so.<version> for Linux/BSD, etc.). My understanding is that > OUTPUT_NAME turns all that logic off. Thanks, fixed this upstream in https://github.com/facebook/folly/commit/f817aff73bea2ce956ec2212c34d12cd206f31cf (In reply to Michel Alexandre Salim from comment #8) > I needed to add -fPIC, which is not in the default CXXFLAGS This is also fixed upstream in https://github.com/facebook/folly/commit/3b1bdb98c3e2ca1e18db4a74c2674f22a7d05b48
Spec URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/libdevel/folly.spec SRPM URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/libdevel/folly-2020.10.12.00-3.fc33.src.rpm Koji scratch build (Rawhide): https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=53951900 Local mock build (Fedora 33): https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/libdevel/folly-2020.10.19.00-3.fc33-logs/ This has both shared libraries (in folly and folly-devel) and static libraries (in folly-static). Davide's fixes are added as patches and I have another fix that's being upstreamed to fix the pkgconfig file to have the right version. Tests and Python bindings are currently disabled as they don't work yet, will work on fixing them later.
(In reply to Michel Alexandre Salim from comment #13) > Spec URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/libdevel/folly.spec > SRPM URL: > https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/libdevel/folly-2020.10.12.00-3.fc33. > src.rpm > The link to src-rpm is wrong.
(In reply to Antonio T. sagitter from comment #14) > The link to src-rpm is wrong. The right one should be https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/libdevel/folly-2020.10.19.00-3.fc33.src.rpm
Let's make fedora-review happy Spec URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/libdevel/folly.spec SRPM URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/libdevel/folly-2020.10.19.00-3.fc33.src.rpm
Spec URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/libdevel/folly.spec SRPM URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/libdevel/folly-2020.10.19.00-4.fc33.src.rpm - Put static cmake support files in its own directory - Add most folly BRs as folly-devel requirements, as dependent packages will need them
- folly.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl /usr/lib64/libfolly.so.2020.10.19.00 SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list $ rpmlint -I crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl: This application package calls a function to explicitly set crypto ciphers for SSL/TLS. That may cause the application not to use the system-wide set cryptographic policy and should be modified in accordance to: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:CryptoPolicies See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/CryptoPolicies/ - No tests ran 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]: 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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [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: "Unknown or generated", "Apache License 2.0", "Expat License", "GNU General Public License (v2)", "zlib/libpng license". 214 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/1887621-folly/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. [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 20480 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]: 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 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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: folly-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. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in folly- static [?]: 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. [x]: 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. [?]: %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]: 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: folly-2020.10.19.00-4.fc34.x86_64.rpm folly-devel-2020.10.19.00-4.fc34.x86_64.rpm folly-static-2020.10.19.00-4.fc34.x86_64.rpm folly-debuginfo-2020.10.19.00-4.fc34.x86_64.rpm folly-debugsource-2020.10.19.00-4.fc34.x86_64.rpm folly-2020.10.19.00-4.fc34.src.rpm folly.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US acronymed -> acronym ed, acronym-ed, acronym folly.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl /usr/lib64/libfolly.so.2020.10.19.00 SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list folly.x86_64: W: no-documentation folly-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation folly.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US acronymed -> acronym ed, acronym-ed, acronym 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: folly-debuginfo-2020.10.19.00-4.fc34.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend. warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend. folly-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/facebook/folly <urlopen error [Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution> warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend. folly-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/facebook/folly <urlopen error [Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution> warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend. folly-static.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/facebook/folly <urlopen error [Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution> folly-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend. folly-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/facebook/folly <urlopen error [Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution> warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend. folly.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US acronymed -> acronym ed, acronym-ed, acronym folly.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/facebook/folly <urlopen error [Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution> folly.x86_64: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/facebook/folly/releases/download/v2020.10.19.00/folly-v2020.10.19.00.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2b0752ce8e1aa032223329675297683452b345313968f5f61d1466b768c97ba3 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2b0752ce8e1aa032223329675297683452b345313968f5f61d1466b768c97ba3 Requires -------- folly (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libaio.so.1()(64bit) libaio.so.1(LIBAIO_0.1)(64bit) libaio.so.1(LIBAIO_0.4)(64bit) libboost_context.so.1.73.0()(64bit) libboost_filesystem.so.1.73.0()(64bit) libboost_program_options.so.1.73.0()(64bit) libboost_regex.so.1.73.0()(64bit) libbz2.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.1.1()(64bit) libcrypto.so.1.1(OPENSSL_1_1_0)(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libdouble-conversion.so.3()(64bit) libevent-2.1.so.7()(64bit) libfolly.so.2020.10.19.00()(64bit) libfolly_exception_tracer.so.2020.10.19.00()(64bit) libfolly_exception_tracer_base.so.2020.10.19.00()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgflags.so.2.2()(64bit) libglog.so.0()(64bit) liblz4.so.1()(64bit) liblzma.so.5()(64bit) liblzma.so.5(XZ_5.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libsnappy.so.1()(64bit) libsodium.so.23()(64bit) libssl.so.1.1()(64bit) libssl.so.1.1(OPENSSL_1_1_0)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.11)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.7)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libunwind.so.8()(64bit) liburing.so.1()(64bit) liburing.so.1(LIBURING_0.1)(64bit) liburing.so.1(LIBURING_0.2)(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) libz.so.1(ZLIB_1.2.0)(64bit) libzstd.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) folly-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config binutils-devel(x86-64) boost-devel(x86-64) bzip2-devel(x86-64) cmake-filesystem cmake-filesystem(x86-64) double-conversion-devel(x86-64) fmt-devel(x86-64) folly(x86-64) glog-devel(x86-64) gmock-devel(x86-64) libaio-devel(x86-64) libdwarf-devel(x86-64) libevent-devel(x86-64) libfolly.so.2020.10.19.00()(64bit) libfolly_exception_counter.so.2020.10.19.00()(64bit) libfolly_exception_tracer.so.2020.10.19.00()(64bit) libfolly_exception_tracer_base.so.2020.10.19.00()(64bit) libfolly_test_util.so.2020.10.19.00()(64bit) libfollybenchmark.so.2020.10.19.00()(64bit) libsodium-devel(x86-64) libunwind-devel(x86-64) liburing-devel(x86-64) libzstd-devel(x86-64) lz4-devel(x86-64) openssl-devel(x86-64) snappy-devel(x86-64) xz-devel(x86-64) zlib-devel(x86-64) folly-static (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake-filesystem(x86-64) folly-devel(x86-64) folly-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): folly-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- folly: folly folly(x86-64) libfolly.so.2020.10.19.00()(64bit) libfolly_exception_counter.so.2020.10.19.00()(64bit) libfolly_exception_tracer.so.2020.10.19.00()(64bit) libfolly_exception_tracer_base.so.2020.10.19.00()(64bit) libfolly_test_util.so.2020.10.19.00()(64bit) libfollybenchmark.so.2020.10.19.00()(64bit) folly-devel: cmake(folly) folly-devel folly-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(libfolly) folly-static: cmake(folly) folly-static folly-static(x86-64) folly-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) folly-debuginfo folly-debuginfo(x86-64) folly-debugsource: folly-debugsource folly-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1887621 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Python, Perl, Ocaml, R, fonts, Haskell, PHP, Java, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
(In reply to Antonio T. sagitter from comment #18) > - folly.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl > /usr/lib64/libfolly.so.2020.10.19.00 SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list > > $ rpmlint -I crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl > crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl: > This application package calls a function to explicitly set crypto ciphers > for > SSL/TLS. That may cause the application not to use the system-wide set > cryptographic policy and should be modified in accordance to: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:CryptoPolicies > > See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/CryptoPolicies/ I don't think this is applicable in this case. The code triggering this is https://github.com/facebook/folly/blob/2fa292ded20bb83383c010974bb7796b2832a84d/folly/io/async/SSLContext.cpp#L211-L217 which is just wrapping OpenSSL as part of the SSLContext interface. This is definitely relevant for applications using folly that consume this interface, but I don't think the library itself should hardcode PROFILE=SYSTEM here.
(In reply to Antonio T. sagitter from comment #18) > folly.x86_64: W: no-documentation > folly-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation FYI we do have documentation (under folly/docs, see https://github.com/facebook/folly/tree/2fa292ded20bb83383c010974bb7796b2832a84d/folly/docs). We should add a BR on pandoc and build and ship this (possibly in its own subpackage).
> - No tests ran Make '%check' section conditional, please. The review is complete. Package approved.
(In reply to Davide Cavalca from comment #20) > (In reply to Antonio T. sagitter from comment #18) > > folly.x86_64: W: no-documentation > > folly-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation > > FYI we do have documentation (under folly/docs, see > https://github.com/facebook/folly/tree/ > 2fa292ded20bb83383c010974bb7796b2832a84d/folly/docs). We should add a BR on > pandoc and build and ship this (possibly in its own subpackage). I missed this from our discussion, thanks for the reminder (In reply to Antonio T. sagitter from comment #21) > > - No tests ran > > Make '%check' section conditional, please. > Good point. It was not failing anyway but a bit misleading and a waste of time to invoke %ctest when we know it will be a no-op > The review is complete. Package approved. Thanks so much!
❯ fedpkg request-repo folly 1887621 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/30071
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/folly
FEDORA-2020-45065fae47 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-45065fae47
FEDORA-2020-53f08a8053 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-53f08a8053
FEDORA-2020-45065fae47 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-2020-45065fae47 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-45065fae47 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-53f08a8053 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 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-2020-53f08a8053 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-53f08a8053 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-53f08a8053 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2020-45065fae47 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.