Bug 2099771 - Review Request: wult - Tool for measuring Intel CPU C-state wake latency
Summary: Review Request: wult - Tool for measuring Intel CPU C-state wake latency
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Linux
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Jaroslav Škarvada
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On: 2099789
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2022-06-21 16:50 UTC by Ali Erdinc Koroglu
Modified: 2023-01-17 18:59 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2023-01-17 18:59:57 UTC
Type: Bug
Embargoed:
jskarvad: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)
The .spec file difference from Copr build 5223855 to 5227725 (1.01 KB, patch)
2023-01-13 16:24 UTC, Jakub Kadlčík
no flags Details | Diff
The .spec file difference from Copr build 5227725 to 5239245 (1.80 KB, patch)
2023-01-17 06:38 UTC, Jakub Kadlčík
no flags Details | Diff

Comment 1 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek 2022-07-05 09:31:04 UTC
This depends on pepc >= 1.3.8 which is missing from the repos?

Some initial comments:
- Release+%changelog → maybe convert to rpmautospec [1]? It's less work for everyone involved.
- debug_package %{nil} seems iffy.
- %pytest → %pytest -v

[1] https://docs.pagure.org/fedora-infra.rpmautospec/index.html

Comment 2 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek 2022-07-05 09:32:01 UTC
I see the other review request now. Please link them up in the future.

Comment 3 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek 2022-07-05 10:42:50 UTC
"Requires: wult" → add " = %{version}-%{release}"

"debug_package %{nil}" → If the debug package breaks build, that usually hides other issues.
But here it seems to build fine if that is removed.

RPM build warnings:
    Duplicate build-ids /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/wult-1.10.5-1.fc37.x86_64/usr/bin/ndlrunner and /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/wult-1.10.5-1.fc37.x86_64/usr/share/wult/helpers/ndlrunner/ndlrunner
    Duplicate build-ids /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/wult-1.10.5-1.fc37.x86_64/usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/ndlrunner-1.10.5-1.fc37.x86_64.debug and /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/wult-1.10.5-1.fc37.x86_64

Comment 5 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek 2022-07-06 08:52:21 UTC
+ package name is OK
~ latest version (1.10.9 was released a few hours ago)
+ license is acceptable for Fedora (BSD)
+ BR/R/P look OK
+ builds and installs OK

wult-devel ships a kernel driver. I'm not sure if this is acceptable
according to
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/what-can-be-packaged/#_no_external_kernel_modules

Why is this delivered as sources, not upstreamed to the kernel?

Comment 6 Ali Erdinc Koroglu 2022-07-06 14:18:24 UTC
Wult developers recognize the importance of upstream and they are themselves upstream kernel developers. They do work towards adding the functionality required for wult to upstream, but this is going to be long process. Meanwhile, it is beneficial to provide them as out of tree drivers. 

Eventually, though, they are expected to be merged upstream and/or replaced with eBPF programs.

Comment 8 Ali Erdinc Koroglu 2022-09-09 08:15:17 UTC
Finally my colleagues released a new version of Wult which does not require a kernel driver (uses eBPF instead) any more.

SPEC Url: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/aekoroglu/fedora/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04830077-wult/wult.spec
SRPM Url: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/aekoroglu/fedora/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04830077-wult/wult-1.10.27-1.fc38.src.rpm

Comment 10 Jaroslav Škarvada 2023-01-10 00:51:31 UTC
Sorry for the delay.

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

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


Issues:
=======
- Latest version is packaged.
  Latest seems to be  1.10.51, please update
- wult.spec:15: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 15, tab: line 1)
- comment patches, provide link to upstream tracker/SCM tracking the issue or justify downstream patches
- %make_build CFLAGS="%optflags -fpic -pie -g" -C helpers/ndlrunner
  -g is already in the %optflags
- GPL-2.0-only files in driver/idle/wult:
  > The spec file License: field consists of an enumeration of all licenses covering
  > any code or other material contained in the correspondingbinary RPM.
  > This enumeration must take the form of an SPDX license expression. No further
  > analysis as to the "effective" license should be done.
  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-field/#_basic_policy
- Requires: wult = %{version}-%{release}
  shouldn't it be arch specific require with %{?_isa}?
- No known owner of /usr/share/wult
- Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag
  You should justify excludearch in comment

===== 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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-Clause License GNU General
     Public License, Version 2", "BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright*
     BSD 3-Clause License", "GNU General Public License, Version 2". 37
     files have unknown license.
[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/share/wult
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/wult
[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.
[-]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[!]: 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 20480 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]: 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

Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
     process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
     provide egg info.
     There is dist-info dir, this should be probably OK
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
     packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
     versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
     use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

===== 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).
[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
     python3-wult
[-]: Package functions as described.
     Untested
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
     Latest is 1.10.51
[x]: 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.
[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]: 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:
[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.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: wult-1.10.34-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm
          python3-wult-1.10.34-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm
          wult-debuginfo-1.10.34-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm
          wult-debugsource-1.10.34-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm
          wult-1.10.34-1.fc38.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/tmp21odkjwb')]
checks: 31, packages: 5

wult.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ipmi-helper
wult.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndlrunner
wult.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary stc-agent
wult.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary wultrunner
python3-wult.x86_64: W: no-documentation
python3-wult.x86_64: E: no-binary
wult.spec:15: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 15, tab: line 1)
 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 2.6 s 




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: wult-debuginfo-1.10.34-1.fc38.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/tmp2q4e0wp9')]
checks: 31, packages: 1

 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s 





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ 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
checks: 31, packages: 4

wult.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ipmi-helper
wult.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ndlrunner
wult.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary stc-agent
wult.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary wultrunner
python3-wult.x86_64: W: no-documentation
python3-wult.x86_64: E: no-binary
 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 1.0 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/intel/wult/archive/v1.10.34/wult-1.10.34.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 768a6aeaad25aa739039f8005581bce86488e46f126632b66ad1c2d5f80343ca
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 768a6aeaad25aa739039f8005581bce86488e46f126632b66ad1c2d5f80343ca


Requires
--------
wult (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python3
    libbpf.so.1()(64bit)
    libbpf.so.1(LIBBPF_0.0.1)(64bit)
    libbpf.so.1(LIBBPF_0.0.7)(64bit)
    libbpf.so.1(LIBBPF_0.0.9)(64bit)
    libbpf.so.1(LIBBPF_0.2.0)(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    pciutils
    python3-wult
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

python3-wult (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    (python3.11dist(pepc) < 1.4~~ with python3.11dist(pepc) >= 1.3.21)
    python(abi)
    python3.11dist(colorama)
    python3.11dist(numpy)
    python3.11dist(pandas)
    python3.11dist(plotly)
    python3.11dist(pyyaml)
    wult

wult-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

wult-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
wult:
    wult
    wult(x86-64)

python3-wult:
    python-wult
    python3-wult
    python3-wult(x86-64)
    python3.11-wult
    python3.11dist(wult)
    python3dist(wult)

wult-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    wult-debuginfo
    wult-debuginfo(x86-64)

wult-debugsource:
    wult-debugsource
    wult-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2099771
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, C/C++, Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: Haskell, SugarActivity, PHP, Java, fonts, Perl, Ocaml, R
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Comment 11 Jaroslav Škarvada 2023-01-10 00:57:57 UTC
(In reply to Jaroslav Škarvada from comment #10)
> - %make_build CFLAGS="%optflags -fpic -pie -g" -C helpers/ndlrunner

IMHO -fpic is also there implicitly via the redhat-hardened-cc1.

Comment 13 Jakub Kadlčík 2023-01-12 14:16:39 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5223855
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2099771-wult/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05223855-wult/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

Comment 14 Jaroslav Škarvada 2023-01-12 23:58:13 UTC
(In reply to Ali Erdinc Koroglu from comment #12)
- Regarding the patch, maybe upstream could allow installation without drivers/helpers, but for now I am OK with the patch.

- %make_build CFLAGS="%optflags -pie -Wl,-z,now" -C helpers/ndl-helper
Are the extra CFLAGS needed?

For the linker flags (-Wl,-z,now) I think it should use full distro's LDGFLAGS, i.e. %{build_ldflags}. Maybe the upstream makefiles could be improved to obey LDFLAGS variable. Then it may work out of the box without extra flags.

- it seems there is a circular dep i.e. python3-wult requires wult and wult requires python3-wult. It means both packages have to be installed simultaneously so is there any reason for having two packages?

Comment 15 Ali Erdinc Koroglu 2023-01-13 16:14:12 UTC
Hello again,
- I added those CFLAGS to fix rpminspect annocheck tests but you're right and changed makefile as you recommended.
- Wult has some C and Python codes that's why I would like to have this separation and circular dep. fixed

SPEC Url: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/aekoroglu/fedora/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05227695-wult/wult.spec
SRPM Url: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/aekoroglu/fedora/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05227695-wult/wult-1.10.53-1.fc38.src.rpm

Comment 16 Jakub Kadlčík 2023-01-13 16:24:15 UTC
Created attachment 1937839 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 5223855 to 5227725

Comment 17 Jakub Kadlčík 2023-01-13 16:24:17 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5227725
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2099771-wult/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05227725-wult/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

Comment 18 Jaroslav Škarvada 2023-01-17 00:15:24 UTC
The package cannot be installed:
Error: 
 Problem: conflicting requests
  - nothing provides python3-wult(x86-64) = 1.10.53-1.fc38 needed by wult-1.10.53-1.fc38.x86_64

It's because now the python3-wult is built noarch, thus remove the %_isa from the requirement.

Also I noted the following minor problem:
wult.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/wult/js/dist/main.js.LICENSE.txt /usr/share/licenses/wult/main.js.LICENSE.txt

Thus probably drop the /usr/share/wult/js/dist/main.js.LICENSE.txt because it's already covered by the %license.

Comment 20 Jakub Kadlčík 2023-01-17 06:38:11 UTC
Created attachment 1938563 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 5227725 to 5239245

Comment 21 Jakub Kadlčík 2023-01-17 06:38:13 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5239245
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2099771-wult/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05239245-wult/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

Comment 22 Jaroslav Škarvada 2023-01-17 14:53:55 UTC
LGTM.

Comment 23 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 2023-01-17 15:42:00 UTC
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/wult


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