Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lzaoral/klee/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02326979-klee/klee.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lzaoral/klee/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02326979-klee/klee-2.2-1.fc35.src.rpm Description: Symbolic virtual machine built on top of the LLVM compiler infrastructure Fedora Account System Username: lzaoral Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=71817839 KLEE is only supported on x86_64. Therefore, it fails to build on 32 bit architectures. On the other hand, remaining 64 bit architectures compile fine but the enclosed test suite fails. Even though I'm not an upstream developer of KLEE, I've contributed some fairly important improvements such as support for releases of LLVM. Also, this is my first package so I'm looking for a sponsor.
I am going to do this review. And I am a sponsor so I can sponsor you.
The description should end with a full stop. Unlike from summary. And the name of package should not be repeated in Summary. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_summary_and_description -- Are any of BuildRequires needed just for %check? If yes then I recommend splitting them by comment like: BuildRequires: gcc # These are needed just for test BuildRequires: some-test-package This helps any future bootstrapping. -- - 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 -- lee.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libkleeRuntest.so.1.0 exit.5 -- klee.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gen-bout klee.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gen-random-bout klee.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary kleaver klee.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary klee klee.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary klee-replay klee.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary klee-stats klee.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary klee-zesti klee.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ktest-tool While this is not a blocker, it would be nice to have one. Probably co-operate with upstream on this. -- BTW most of these issue I found using `/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1981739`.
Thank you for the quick review. I'll fix the wording of the summary and description and I'll contact upstream developers about the manual pages. However, the warnings regarding the libkleetest library are not relevant for this package as this library is meant to be used by users of KLEE and not by developers. Users can replay a specific test-case generated by KLEE by linking this support library directly to the original tested sources, therefore, -devel sub-package is not suitable in this case. The same goes for the "shared-lib-calls-exit" warning. Users can control the behaviour of this library by environment variables and one of them results in a call of exit(3) if something goes wrong with the replay environment itself. More onto this topic can be found in this tutorial: https://klee.github.io/tutorials/testing-function/#replaying-a-test-case Thanks for pointing it out, though, I'll emphasize this fact more in the spec file.
Ack. Can you please upload edited src.rpm and spec file?
Sure. Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lzaoral/klee/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02330702-klee/klee.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lzaoral/klee/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02330702-klee/klee-2.2-1.fc35.src.rpm Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=71935985
Note that you will have to open BZ later because of that exclude arch. And put that BZ link in spec. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_architecture_build_failures (you actually raised this yourself during our face2face meeting).
Can you please run licensecheck on the tarball? It seems there are some files under a different license. These exceptions should be then described in the comment. E.g., # most files NCSA # RNG.cpp under BSD License: NCSA and BSD This is just an example, not a complete list.
Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/include/klee You should own it: %files %dir %{_includedir}/klee
Thank you for your insightful suggestions and remarks! --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lzaoral/klee/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02331509-klee/klee.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lzaoral/klee/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02331509-klee/klee-2.2-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
Side note, for sponsoring to packager group Lukas did this informal reviews: * wildmatch - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1985116 * google-crc32c - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1983175 * qpress - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1985573
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed There is still one issue Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/include/klee Otherwise: Issues: ======= - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: klee : /usr/include/klee/klee.h See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_devel_packages - 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 All above argued during the review. Waiving out. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [-]: 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]: 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. 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. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/include/klee [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. [-]: 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 30720 bytes in 2 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 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]: 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). [?]: 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. [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [!]: 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]: 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]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [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.
I will point out that one issue separately Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/include/klee
That should be already fixed in the latest spec and SRPM. Sorry for the confusion, now I see that I accidentally sent a link to RPM and not to SRPM in my last comment so fedora-review downloaded an old SRPM. Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lzaoral/klee/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02331509-klee/klee.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lzaoral/klee/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02331509-klee/klee-2.2-1.fc35.src.rpm
APPROVED
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/klee
Excludearch bug 1989412