Spec URL: https://tachoknight.fedorapeople.org/libdispatch/libdispatch.spec SRPM URL: https://tachoknight.fedorapeople.org/libdispatch/libdispatch-5.3.2-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: Apple's Grand Central Dispatch library Fedora Account System Username: tachoknight
CMake 3.18 is coming in RHEL 8.4 in the spring. This is tracked in bug 1816874.
Should I remove the reference now, or could I update it when it's available?
Please remove it now.
Okay, removed. Updated spec and SRPM at the same locations above.
> %global debug_package %{nil} Why are you doing this? > Provides: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} This is redundant, as RPM autogenerates this already. > cmake -G Ninja -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=%{buildroot}%{_usr} -DCMAKE_C_COMPILER=clang -DCMAKE_CXX_COMPILER=clang++ . > ninja > [..] > ninja install Why isn't this using the CMake macros, like so? > %cmake -G Ninja > %cmake_build > [..] > %cmake_install > %post -p /sbin/ldconfig > %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig This is unneeded for EPEL8+ and Fedora. If you need EPEL7 compatibility, use "%ldconfig_scriptlets" instead: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging#Shared_Libraries
The %global debug_package %{nil} is added because without it, the package fails with an "RPM build error: empty %files file debugfiles.list" error; from what I've gathered via some searching, the issue is related to the same reason that I'm not using the %cmake macros; they don't expand correctly to build successfully. Trying to use %cmake -G Ninja by itself defaults to gcc, trying to pass the -DCMAKE_C_COMPILER=clang -DCMAKE_CXX_COMPILER=clang++ flags result in complaints that /usr/bin/clang can't compile a simple program. Other than that, I removed the Provides (I didn't know that was no longer necessary) along with the %post and %postrun. Spec and SRPM replaced with the latest-n-greatest.
Try doing "%undefine hardened_build 1" instead of "%global debug_package %{nil}" and using the macros normally (with your flags setting clang as the compiler). That should eliminate the breakage for clang. Though why are you building it with Clang instead of GCC?
I added %global _hardened_build 0 based on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Harden_All_Packages#Troubleshooting_steps_for_package_maintainers to the top of the file, then modified the spec file to use the cmake macros and got exactly the same errors. gcc doesn't work because of the difference in flags. For example, when trying to build it with gcc you immediately get: cc: error: unrecognized command-line option ‘-Warray-bounds-pointer-arithmetic’ cc: error: unrecognized command-line option ‘-Wassign-enum’ cc: error: unrecognized command-line option ‘-Watomic-properties’ cc: error: unrecognized command-line option ‘-Wcomma’; did you mean ‘-Wcomment’? cc: error: unrecognized command-line option ‘-Wconditional-uninitialized’; did you mean ‘-Wno-uninitialized’? cc: error: unrecognized command-line option ‘-Wcovered-switch-default’; did you mean ‘-Wno-switch-default’? cc: error: unrecognized command-line option ‘-Wdocumentation’ cc: error: unrecognized command-line option ‘-Wduplicate-enum’; did you mean ‘-Wduplicated-cond’? cc: error: unrecognized command-line option ‘-Widiomatic-parentheses’; did you mean ‘-Wno-parentheses’? cc: error: unrecognized command-line option ‘-Winfinite-recursion’ cc: error: unrecognized command-line option ‘-Wnewline-eof’ cc: error: unrecognized command-line option ‘-Wnullable-to-nonnull-conversion’ cc: error: unrecognized command-line option ‘-Wobjc-interface-ivars’ cc: error: unrecognized command-line option ‘-Wover-aligned’ cc: error: unrecognized command-line option ‘-Wshorten-64-to-32’ cc: error: unrecognized command-line option ‘-Wstatic-in-inline’ cc: error: unrecognized command-line option ‘-Wsuper-class-method-mismatch’ cc: error: unrecognized command-line option ‘-Wunguarded-availability’ cc: error: unrecognized command-line option ‘-fblocks’
May be you should add this macro to use clang properly: %global toolchain clang
The %global toolchain clang macro did make it work. I had to add a patch to handle -Werror -Wunused-result with asprintf() in the tests directory. Updated spec and srpm in the same location as before.
I updated the spec and srpm with the new version that was released last week: Spec URL: https://tachoknight.fedorapeople.org/libdispatch/libdispatch.spec SRPM URL: https://tachoknight.fedorapeople.org/libdispatch/libdispatch-5.3.2-1.fc33.src.rpm
ugh, copy and paste fail: SRPM URL: https://tachoknight.fedorapeople.org/libdispatch/libdispatch-5.3.3-1.fc33.src.rpm
You must create -devel subpackage with header files.
Generally it works now. lastfm plugin for deadbeef compiled succesfully. So need to create devel subpackage and I will finish review.
Great that it's working for you! I added the -devel package. Spec URL: https://tachoknight.fedorapeople.org/libdispatch/libdispatch.spec SRPM URL: https://tachoknight.fedorapeople.org/libdispatch/libdispatch-5.3.3-1.fc33.src.rpm
/usr/include/Block.h already provided by libblocksruntime-devel package. May be conflict. And requires for devel change to Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
I made the change to the spec file to your suggestion, thanks! I was thinking of retiring the libblockruntime package as libdispatch basically replaces it. Would it be a good idea to add an "Obsoletes" entry to the spec file for libblocksruntime?
I think versioned Obsoletes needed.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#renaming-or-replacing-existing-packages
Okay, I updated the spec with what I think is the appropriate values based on the link you provided, plus some research I did to make sure I was doing it correctly.
We have problems: libdispatch.x86_64: W: self-obsoletion libblocksruntime < 7.0.0-5 obsoletes libblocksruntime = 5.3.3-1.fc34 libdispatch.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libBlocksRuntime.so libBlocksRuntime.so libdispatch.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libdispatch.so libdispatch.so libdispatch.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libdispatch.so ['$ORIGIN'] 1. Need more investigate about obsoletion in this case. 2. Is it possible to add version for libs? 3. Add BuildRequires: chrpath and chrpath --delete %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/libdispatch.so after %cmake_install
I see to the Epoch bump. Because 5.3.3 < 7.0.0.
I made the suggested changes and tested it using toolbox (woohoo, SilverBlue for the win!) and it obsoleted libblocksruntime correctly. As far as versioning the libs, the Apple CMake scripts don't do that, it would have to be done manually with `ln -s` and all that; would that interfere with the %cmake_install macro? Spec URL: https://tachoknight.fedorapeople.org/libdispatch/libdispatch.spec SRPM URL: https://tachoknight.fedorapeople.org/libdispatch/libdispatch-5.3.3-1.fc33.src.rpm
Approved. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ - Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_devel_packages ===== 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", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Apache License 2.0". 60 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/vascom/1916936-libdispatch/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/include/dispatch, /usr/include/os [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/include/dispatch, /usr/include/os [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. [x]: 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. [x]: 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 successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [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 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]: 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]: 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]: 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. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-]: %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]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_use_rpmlint [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. Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 2.9 starting (python version = 3.9.1, NVR = mock-2.9-1.fc33)... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins INFO: Signal handler active Start: run Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled package manager cache Start: cleaning package manager metadata Finish: cleaning package manager metadata INFO: enabled HW Info plugin Mock Version: 2.9 INFO: Mock Version: 2.9 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /home/vascom/1916936-libdispatch/results/libdispatch-5.3.3-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm /home/vascom/1916936-libdispatch/results/libdispatch-debugsource-5.3.3-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm /home/vascom/1916936-libdispatch/results/libdispatch-devel-5.3.3-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm /home/vascom/1916936-libdispatch/results/libdispatch-debuginfo-5.3.3-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm ERROR: Command failed: # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 34 --setopt=deltarpm=False --allowerasing --disableplugin=local --disableplugin=spacewalk install /home/vascom/1916936-libdispatch/results/libdispatch-5.3.3-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm /home/vascom/1916936-libdispatch/results/libdispatch-debugsource-5.3.3-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm /home/vascom/1916936-libdispatch/results/libdispatch-devel-5.3.3-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm /home/vascom/1916936-libdispatch/results/libdispatch-debuginfo-5.3.3-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts Rpmlint ------- Checking: libdispatch-5.3.3-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm libdispatch-devel-5.3.3-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm libdispatch-debuginfo-5.3.3-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm libdispatch-debugsource-5.3.3-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm libdispatch-5.3.3-1.fc34.src.rpm libdispatch.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multicore -> multicolored libdispatch.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xnu -> nu, gnu, x nu libdispatch.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pthread -> thread, p thread libdispatch.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 5.3.3-1 ['1:5.3.3-1.fc34', '1:5.3.3-1'] libdispatch.x86_64: W: self-obsoletion libblocksruntime < 7.0.0-5 obsoletes libblocksruntime = 5.3.3-1.fc34 libdispatch.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libBlocksRuntime.so libBlocksRuntime.so libdispatch.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libdispatch.so libdispatch.so libdispatch-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libdispatch.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multicore -> multicolored libdispatch.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xnu -> nu, gnu, x nu libdispatch.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pthread -> thread, p thread 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 9 warnings. Unversioned so-files -------------------- libdispatch: /usr/lib64/libBlocksRuntime.so libdispatch: /usr/lib64/libdispatch.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/apple/swift-corelibs-libdispatch/archive/swift-5.3.3-RELEASE.tar.gz#/corelibs-libdispatch.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 84a482afefdcda26c7dc83e3b75e662ed7705786a34a6b4958c0cdc6cace2c46 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 84a482afefdcda26c7dc83e3b75e662ed7705786a34a6b4958c0cdc6cace2c46 Requires -------- libdispatch (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libBlocksRuntime.so()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libdispatch-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libdispatch(x86-64) libdispatch-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libdispatch-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- libdispatch: libBlocksRuntime.so()(64bit) libblocksruntime libdispatch libdispatch(x86-64) libdispatch.so()(64bit) libdispatch-devel: libdispatch-devel libdispatch-devel(x86-64) libdispatch-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libdispatch-debuginfo libdispatch-debuginfo(x86-64) libdispatch-debugsource: libdispatch-debugsource libdispatch-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1916936 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Python, PHP, Java, Perl, R, SugarActivity, fonts, Haskell, Ocaml Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Thank you very much for reviewing this, Vasiliy.
FEDORA-2021-f1022ad7a1 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-f1022ad7a1
FEDORA-2021-f1022ad7a1 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-f1022ad7a1 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-f1022ad7a1 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
Build please for rawhide too.
The devel package does not install because it does not require the base package with epoch. bz1926156.
FEDORA-2021-1076f40eaf has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-1076f40eaf
FEDORA-2021-1076f40eaf has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-1076f40eaf \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-1076f40eaf See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-1076f40eaf has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
So what about rawhide and F34 builds?
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=62538191 and https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1705093