Bug 2078535 - Review Request: randomx - A proof-of-work algorithm that is optimized for general-purpose CPUs
Summary: Review Request: randomx - A proof-of-work algorithm that is optimized for gen...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Felix Wang
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2022-04-25 14:29 UTC by Jonny Heggheim
Modified: 2023-11-17 09:39 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2023-11-17 09:39:16 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
topazus: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Jonny Heggheim 2022-04-25 14:29:01 UTC
Spec URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/randomx.spec
SRPM URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/randomx-1.1.10-1.fc35.src.rpm

Description:
RandomX is a proof-of-work (PoW) algorithm that is optimized for
general-purpose CPUs. RandomX uses random code execution (hence the name)
together with several memory-hard techniques to minimize the efficiency
advantage of specialized hardware.

Fedora Account System Username: jonny

Comment 1 Jonny Heggheim 2022-11-14 20:31:48 UTC
Dependency for Monero

Comment 2 Package Review 2023-11-15 00:45:33 UTC
This is an automatic check from review-stats script.

This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry
it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software
into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the
NEEDINFO flag.

You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version
available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase
chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you
need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group.

Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned
and will be closed.
Thank you for your patience.

Comment 3 Jonny Heggheim 2023-11-15 10:15:38 UTC
I would still like this package to be built.

Updated to latest version 1.2.1


Spec URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/randomx.spec
SRPM URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/randomx-1.2.1-1.fc39.src.rpm
Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=109060046

Comment 4 Fedora Review Service 2023-11-15 10:25:27 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6638095
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2078535-randomx/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06638095-randomx/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.

---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Comment 5 Felix Wang 2023-11-15 11:35:20 UTC
There are some minor issues in reviewing the package.

1.
> License: BSD

Use SPDX license format.

2.
> %forgesetup
> %patch -P 0 -p 1

It could be replaced by `%forgeautosetup -p1`.

3.
> Release: 1%{?dist}

It would be better to use %autorelease macro.

---


Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
=======
- The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
  Note: Not a valid SPDX expression 'BSD'. It seems that you are using the
  old Fedora license abbreviations. Try `license-fedora2spdx' for
  converting it to SPDX.
  See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1


===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[ ]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
     Note: Sources not installed
[ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[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]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

Generic:
[ ]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
     Note: Using prebuilt packages
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
     found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: 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
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: 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 163903 bytes in 7 files.
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[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:
[!]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[ ]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[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:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: randomx-1.2.1-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm
          randomx-devel-1.2.1-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm
          randomx-debuginfo-1.2.1-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm
          randomx-debugsource-1.2.1-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm
          randomx-1.2.1-1.fc40.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpk6jm55ty')]
checks: 31, packages: 5

 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s 




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: randomx-debuginfo-1.2.1-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpoaitm40i')]
checks: 31, packages: 1

 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s 





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
(none): E: there is no installed rpm "randomx".
(none): E: there is no installed rpm "randomx-debuginfo".
(none): E: there is no installed rpm "randomx-devel".
(none): E: there is no installed rpm "randomx-debugsource".
There are no files to process nor additional arguments.
Nothing to do, aborting.
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 31, packages: 4

 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/tevador/RandomX/archive/v1.2.1/RandomX-1.2.1.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 2e6dd3bed96479332c4c8e4cab2505699ade418a07797f64ee0d4fa394555032
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2e6dd3bed96479332c4c8e4cab2505699ade418a07797f64ee0d4fa394555032


Requires
--------
randomx (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

randomx-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    librandomx.so.0()(64bit)
    randomx(x86-64)

randomx-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

randomx-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
randomx:
    librandomx.so.0()(64bit)
    randomx
    randomx(x86-64)

randomx-devel:
    randomx-devel
    randomx-devel(x86-64)

randomx-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    librandomx.so.0.0.0-1.2.1-1.fc40.x86_64.debug()(64bit)
    randomx-debuginfo
    randomx-debuginfo(x86-64)

randomx-debugsource:
    randomx-debugsource
    randomx-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name randomx --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Perl, Haskell, SugarActivity, fonts, Java, Python, PHP, R, Ocaml
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comment 6 Jonny Heggheim 2023-11-15 18:12:41 UTC
(In reply to Felix Wang from comment #5)
> There are some minor issues in reviewing the package.
> 
> 1.
> > License: BSD
> 
> Use SPDX license format.
> 
> 2.
> > %forgesetup
> > %patch -P 0 -p 1
> 
> It could be replaced by `%forgeautosetup -p1`.
> 
> 3.
> > Release: 1%{?dist}
> 
> It would be better to use %autorelease macro.
> 

Thanks for doing the review, I have fixed these issues and uploaded new version. The URLs are the same.

Comment 7 Felix Wang 2023-11-16 15:16:33 UTC
Approved. Btw, May I ask you to take the package review of veccore for package swap, which is header-only package. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2225003

Comment 8 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 2023-11-16 18:49:34 UTC
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/randomx

Comment 9 Jonny Heggheim 2023-11-16 20:55:31 UTC
(In reply to Felix Wang from comment #7)
> Approved. Btw, May I ask you to take the package review of veccore for
> package swap, which is header-only package.
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2225003

Thanks for the review, I will review veccore.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.