Hide Forgot
Spec URL: https://cheeselee.fedorapeople.org/arch-test.spec SRPM URL: https://cheeselee.fedorapeople.org/arch-test-0.18-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: This tool will tell you "can your machine+kernel run architecture X?". The check is for the ability to run machine code and supporting appropriate syscall ABI, not for the presence of userland libraries. IE, a positive answer means you can use a chroot or container of that architecture, add it to your multiarch set, etc, but doesn't mean you can currently run non-static binaries without installing required libraries. Fedora Account System Username: cheeselee
Hello Robin, thank you for the package. I am trying to use it, and I am getting results, that I wouldn't expect. For example: [jkadlcik@zeratul ~]$ arch-test arm64 arm64: ok [jkadlcik@zeratul ~]$ arch-test s390x s390x: ok [jkadlcik@zeratul ~]$ arch-test ppc64el ppc64el: ok I am running on a standard Lenovo X1 laptop, which is x86_64. [jkadlcik@zeratul ~]$ uname -a Linux zeratul 5.18.17-200.fc36.x86_64 #1 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Thu Aug 11 14:36:06 UTC 2022 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux So I would expect only something like amd64 and i386 to be OK. Is this a bug or am I misunderstanding the package? Sorry if I am missing something obvious. Thank you, Jakub
(In reply to Jakub Kadlčík from comment #1) > So I would expect only something like amd64 and i386 to be OK. > Is this a bug or am I misunderstanding the package? > Sorry if I am missing something obvious. This tool will take user-space emulators, e.g. qemu-user into account. For example, it will return ok for riscv if qemu-user-static-riscv is installed, no matter what is the native arch.
> This tool will take user-space emulators, e.g. qemu-user into > account. For example, it will return ok for riscv if > qemu-user-static-riscv is installed, no matter what is the native > arch. Thank you for the explanation > BuildRequires: binutils-riscv64-linux-gnu > BuildRequires: binutils-aarch64-linux-gnu > BuildRequires: binutils-alpha-linux-gnu > BuildRequires: binutils-arc-linux-gnu > ... Are these really needed? I removed all the binutils-* BuildRequires and the package still successfully builds in Copr for all Fedora chroots and architectures. > %{_bindir}/* > %{_prefix}/lib/* > %{_mandir}/man1/* Please be more specific here, for example %{_bindir}/%{name} %{_bindir}/elf-arch ... > arch-test.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/lib/arch-test/alpha > arch-test.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/lib/arch-test/amd64 > arch-test.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/lib/arch-test/arm64 Fedora-review tool returns these in the Rpmlint section but if I understand correctly, this is done intentionally.
Spec URL: https://cheeselee.fedorapeople.org/arch-test.spec SRPM URL: https://cheeselee.fedorapeople.org/arch-test-0.18-1.fc36.src.rpm Changes: 1. use %generate_buildrequires to generate the list of binutils BR 2. Don't run configure to not opt out any arch 3. Include the mingw arches and apply an upstream patch to fix the build 4. Convert to rpmautospec (In reply to Jakub Kadlčík from comment #3) > > BuildRequires: binutils-riscv64-linux-gnu > > BuildRequires: binutils-aarch64-linux-gnu > > BuildRequires: binutils-alpha-linux-gnu > > BuildRequires: binutils-arc-linux-gnu > > ... > > Are these really needed? I removed all the binutils-* BuildRequires > and the package still successfully builds in Copr for all Fedora > chroots and architectures. I use %generate_buildrequires to generate the list of binutils variants > > > > %{_bindir}/* > > %{_prefix}/lib/* > > %{_mandir}/man1/* > > Please be more specific here, for example > > %{_bindir}/%{name} > %{_bindir}/elf-arch > ... done > > > > arch-test.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/lib/arch-test/alpha > > arch-test.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/lib/arch-test/amd64 > > arch-test.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/lib/arch-test/arm64 > > Fedora-review tool returns these in the Rpmlint section but if I > understand correctly, this is done intentionally. Yes. That's the trick of this package. It simple build different kinds of executables and run each to see whether the current environment can run codes of that arch.
Spec URL: https://cheeselee.fedorapeople.org/arch-test.spec SRPM URL: https://cheeselee.fedorapeople.org/arch-test-0.18-1.fc38.src.rpm Using %generate_buildrequires is too tricky for this package, I changed to specify BR by command paths.
FYI, this tool is mainly to be used with BuildStream, the tool that builds Flatpak runtimes and GNOME OS.
Thank you for the changes, Robin. > Version: 0.18 There is already 0.19 https://github.com/kilobyte/arch-test/releases/tag/v0.19 Which includes the Patch0 change, I think. Otherwise LGTM
Spec URL: https://cheeselee.fedorapeople.org/arch-test.spec SRPM URL: https://cheeselee.fedorapeople.org/arch-test-0.19-1.fc36.src.rpm Changes: - New release 0.19
Thank you for the update. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== 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: "*No copyright* MIT License", "Unknown or generated". 37 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jkadlcik/2073765-arch-test/licensecheck.txt [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]: 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 10240 bytes in 1 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]: 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]: 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. [?]: 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]: 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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1 arch-test.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/lib/arch-test/alpha arch-test.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/lib/arch-test/amd64 arch-test.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/lib/arch-test/arm arch-test.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/lib/arch-test/arm64 arch-test.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/lib/arch-test/arm64ilp32 arch-test.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/lib/arch-test/armel arch-test.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/lib/arch-test/armhf arch-test.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/lib/arch-test/hppa arch-test.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/lib/arch-test/i386 arch-test.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/lib/arch-test/ia64 arch-test.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/lib/arch-test/illumos-amd64 arch-test.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/lib/arch-test/kfreebsd-amd64 arch-test.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/lib/arch-test/kfreebsd-i386 arch-test.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/lib/arch-test/m68k arch-test.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/lib/arch-test/mips arch-test.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/lib/arch-test/mips64 arch-test.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/lib/arch-test/mips64el arch-test.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/lib/arch-test/mipsel arch-test.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/lib/arch-test/mipsn32 arch-test.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/lib/arch-test/mipsn32el arch-test.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/lib/arch-test/powerpc arch-test.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/lib/arch-test/powerpcspe arch-test.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/lib/arch-test/ppc64 arch-test.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/lib/arch-test/ppc64el arch-test.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/lib/arch-test/riscv64 arch-test.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/lib/arch-test/s390x arch-test.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/lib/arch-test/sh4 arch-test.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/lib/arch-test/sparc arch-test.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/lib/arch-test/sparc64 arch-test.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/lib/arch-test/x32 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 30 errors, 0 warnings, 30 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/kilobyte/arch-test/archive/v0.19.tar.gz#/arch-test-0.19.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a0361ff3d6d9066773065760e4128bc97ebfa2f4cae69522e4dcc614337d22a4 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a0361ff3d6d9066773065760e4128bc97ebfa2f4cae69522e4dcc614337d22a4 Requires -------- arch-test (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/perl /usr/bin/sh Provides -------- arch-test: arch-test Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2073765 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: R, fonts, Java, Haskell, C/C++, Perl, Ocaml, SugarActivity, PHP, Python Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/arch-test
FEDORA-2022-ad8fcbe904 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-ad8fcbe904
FEDORA-2022-ad8fcbe904 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-eb67dbc863 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-eb67dbc863
FEDORA-2022-ffa3f360f0 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-ffa3f360f0
FEDORA-2022-cfd7a48810 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-cfd7a48810
FEDORA-2022-cfd7a48810 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-cfd7a48810 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-cfd7a48810 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-ffa3f360f0 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-ffa3f360f0 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-ffa3f360f0 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-eb67dbc863 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-eb67dbc863 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-eb67dbc863 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-eb67dbc863 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-ffa3f360f0 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-cfd7a48810 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.