SPEC Url: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/aekoroglu/intel-fedora/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04552071-wult/wult.spec SRPM Url: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/aekoroglu/intel-fedora/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04552071-wult/wult-1.10.5-1.fc37.src.rpm Description: Tool for measuring Intel CPU C-state wake latency
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
I see the other review request now. Please link them up in the future.
"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
Hi there, I changed the spec file as you recommended. SPEC Url: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/aekoroglu/intel-fedora/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04597858-wult/wult.spec SRPM Url: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/aekoroglu/intel-fedora/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04597858-wult/wult-1.10.8-1.fc37.x86_64.rpm Thank you.
+ 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?
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.
Hello again, discussion [1] will take some time so I excluded driver sources from the package. 1: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/75LZKVSVSTMSJRFZXYTKTHXGHAMFXPQ6/ SPEC Url: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/aekoroglu/intel-fedora/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04691553-wult/wult.spec SRPM Url: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/aekoroglu/intel-fedora/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04691553-wult/wult-1.10.11-1.fc37.src.rpm Thank you.
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
New version SPEC Url : https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/aekoroglu/fedora/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04961963-wult/wult.spec SRPM Url : https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/aekoroglu/fedora/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04961963-wult/wult-1.10.34-1.fc38.src.rpm
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
(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.
Hello again, thanks for the comments. SPEC Url: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/aekoroglu/fedora/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05223603-wult/wult.spec SRPM Url: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/aekoroglu/fedora/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05223603-wult/wult-1.10.53-1.fc38.src.rpm
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
(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?
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
Created attachment 1937839 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 5223855 to 5227725
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
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.
Thank you for the comments, changes are upstreamed and new version released. SPEC Url: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/aekoroglu/fedora/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05239153-wult/wult.spec SRPM Url: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/aekoroglu/fedora/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05239153-wult/wult-1.10.54-1.fc38.src.rpm
Created attachment 1938563 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 5227725 to 5239245
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
LGTM.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/wult