Spec URL: https://sergesanspaille.fedorapeople.org/ziglang.spec SRPM URL: https://sergesanspaille.fedorapeople.org/ziglang-0.7.1-1.src.rpm Description: Zig is an open-source programming language designed for robustness, optimality, and clarity Fedora Account System Username: sergesanspaille
A few initial comments: * the description isn’t great; I think it should at least indicate that the package is a compiler, and describe the supported targets (and be line-wrapped) * the license isn’t complete, the various library headers have a lot of different licenses which affect the resulting binary package * the excluded arches need BZs, see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_architecture_build_failures * why isn’t the documentation generated?
Thanks for the review and sorry for the late answer. I've uploaded the updated .spec and .rpms * description: done * I've updated the license field, including the comments needed for each bundled lib * concerning the excluded archs, I should open the BZ only once the package is accepted * there's... no documentation to generate, unless I missed something in their code source ;-)
Regarding the docs, I was thinking of the generator in the doc/ directory. It would be worth at least filing a bug upstream to ask for it to be integrated into the build ;-).
Issue opened as https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/7897
Spec and rpms updated with documentation generated. I've also submitted a patch upstream to automate documentation build (see https://github.com/ziglang/zig/pull/7911)
you can simply build documentation with 'zig build docs' using the freshly compiled zig binary am not a fan of bundling the zig stdlib with the actual binary since the stdlib is distributed in source form making it arch independent this would also allow the main zig package to be licensed under just MIT The generated langref.html documentation is also a handfull so I suggest making a -doc package for it since zig has no official manpage yet (https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/715) I suggest using help2man here is the spec I have been maintaining for a copr repo for reference to my suggestions https://pagure.io/zig-spec/blob/fedora/f/zig.spec
Thanks for all the comments. Spec file updated here Spec URL: https://sergesanspaille.fedorapeople.org/zig.spec SRPM URL: https://sergesanspaille.fedorapeople.org/zig-0.7.1-1.src.rpm scratch-build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=61017957
We’re getting there, thanks; the remaining issues are: * zig-doc ships langref.html in /usr/share/doc/zig instead of /usr/share/doc/zig-doc * the zig-doc description results in a line that’s too long; it should be wrapped after “%{name}.” * the zig-libs summary isn’t capitalised (“zig standard library”) * /lib/ is hard-coded (“%{_prefix}/lib/%{name}”) * “optimality” isn’t recognised as a word (but it is in at least some dictionaries) Also, Zig 0.7.1 requires clang 11 but Rawhide now has 12.
To build with clang 11, change the cmake invocation to %cmake \ -DLLVM_CONFIG_EXE=%{_bindir}/llvm-config-11-%{__isa_bits} \ -DLLVM_INCLUDE_DIRS=%{_libdir}/llvm11/include \ -DLLVM_LIBRARIES=%{_libdir}/llvm11/lib \ -DCLANG_INCLUDE_DIRS=%{_libdir}/include/clang \ -DCLANG_LIBRARIES=%{_libdir}/llvm11/lib \ -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=RelWithDebInfo \ -DZIG_PREFER_CLANG_CPP_DYLIB=ON \ -DZIG_VERSION:STRING="%{version}" and the build requires to BuildRequires: llvm11-devel BuildRequires: clang11-devel The overall build fails because the lld11 libraries aren’t available.
(In reply to Stephen Kitt from comment #8) > * /lib/ is hard-coded (“%{_prefix}/lib/%{name}”) Last I checked zig does not accept lib64 or the like and considering the entire standard library is distributed in plain text making an arch independent package that puts it into /lib/ seems fine to me
(In reply to Jan Drögehoff from comment #10) > (In reply to Stephen Kitt from comment #8) > > * /lib/ is hard-coded (“%{_prefix}/lib/%{name}”) > Last I checked zig does not accept lib64 or the like and considering > the entire standard library is distributed in plain text making an > arch independent package that puts it into /lib/ seems fine to me Thanks for the explanation, I agree that seems fine.
This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script. The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month. As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it.