Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jstanek/wasi-libc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05390840-wasi-libc/wasi-libc.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jstanek/wasi-libc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05390840-wasi-libc/wasi-libc-19-1.fc38.src.rpm Description: WASI Libc is a libc for WebAssembly programs built on top of WASI system calls. It provides a wide array of POSIX-compatible C APIs, including support for standard I/O, file I/O, filesystem manipulation, memory management, time, string, environment variables, program startup, and many other APIs. Fedora Account System Username: jstanek
This is kind-of work in progress – it builds, installs and I can use it to compile things; but I have no good idea on how packaging of this kind of library should look. Any comments and pointers greatly appreciated. Known deviations from standard Fedora packaging guidelines: - Header files in main package: Not sure if this is applicable even to standard C library. - Static libs (.a) files in main package: Ditto above; but perhaps adding Provides: wasi-libc-static would be appropriate. --- Note: I'll be on a trip for the following week, expect delays in reactions.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5390883 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2166379-wasi-libc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05390883-wasi-libc/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
Updated build, which now ships the files in -devel subpackage, while also providing the -static name to depend on. Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jstanek/wasi-libc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05521803-wasi-libc/wasi-libc.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jstanek/wasi-libc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05521803-wasi-libc/wasi-libc-19-2.fc39.src.rpm
Created attachment 1943857 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 5390883 to 5521865
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5521865 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2166379-wasi-libc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05521865-wasi-libc/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.
The spec file looks OK to me. The only part I'm not sure about is completely overriding the build_cflags. Normally, I would object to this, but I don't know which of the flags in build_cflags are supported or even relevant for wasm. Have you checked to see which flags the upstream uses ?
Hi! Thanks for working on this -- I do have notes. :) > Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} This is problematic, requiring something like "wasi-libc(x86-64) = 19-2.fc37". There's no resulting %{name} package at all, and especially not for the particular build isa. > Provides: %{name}-static = %{version}-%{release} This is okay, but for Rust it would be a little nicer to have -static on its own with just %{wasi_libdir}, as I don't need any headers. Then -devel can Require -static. Really all rustc needs is crt1-command.o, crt1-reactor.o, and libc.a, but it's probably not worth breaking it down that far. I tried to use your package with rustc (forcing past the isa problem above), and got this error: .../libc.a: archive has no index; run ranlib to add one I've faced that with Rust wasm libraries too, like bug 2002612. My current solution is to run llvm-ranlib in post: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust/blob/752fe3bcd2d1df989986fc5829445ec937311e74/f/rust.spec#_317 After that, it works! At least, I got a Rust "Hello, World!" running in wasmtime; I didn't try anything more thorough yet.
(In reply to Tom Stellard from comment #7) > The spec file looks OK to me. The only part I'm not sure about is > completely overriding the build_cflags. Normally, I would object to this, > but I don't know which of the flags in build_cflags are supported or even > relevant for wasm. Have you checked to see which flags the upstream uses ? In upstream, the CFLAGS originally contain `-O2 -DNDEBUG`, and then a bunch of other flags are appended: > CFLAGS += --target=$(TARGET_TRIPLE) > CFLAGS += -fno-trapping-math > CFLAGS += -Wall -Wextra -Werror \ > -Wno-null-pointer-arithmetic \ > -Wno-unused-parameter \ > -Wno-sign-compare \ > -Wno-unused-variable \ > -Wno-unused-function \ > -Wno-ignored-attributes \ > -Wno-missing-braces \ > -Wno-ignored-pragmas \ > -Wno-unused-but-set-variable \ > -Wno-unknown-warning-option ... and also flags specific for threading model, etc. Originally, I tried to just patch/adjust the build_cflags as set by distribution, but that throws off testing – during build, the compiler emits definitions and values of a list of macros (`#define __SIZE_MAX__ 4294967295UL` and similar) and these are checked against expected values. Using the distribution flags, the expected files had to be patched. Some of the values I know to be pretty much just informational, however, most of them are not familiar to me, so I prefer not to touch them unless necessary. In other words, I'm not against just adjusting/specifying different %build_cflags, but someone has to tell me what the correct value is :)
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jstanek/wasi-libc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05560607-wasi-libc/wasi-libc.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jstanek/wasi-libc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05560607-wasi-libc/wasi-libc-19-3.fc39.src.rpm (In reply to Josh Stone from comment #8) > > Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} > > This is problematic, requiring something like "wasi-libc(x86-64) = > 19-2.fc37". There's no resulting %{name} package at all, and especially not > for the particular build isa. Good catch, copied from guidelines without thinking twice. Removed. > > Provides: %{name}-static = %{version}-%{release} > > This is okay, but for Rust it would be a little nicer to have -static on its > own with just %{wasi_libdir}, as I don't need any headers. Then -devel can > Require -static. Really all rustc needs is crt1-command.o, crt1-reactor.o, > and libc.a, but it's probably not worth breaking it down that far. Split to -static and -devel as suggested. I would avoid any further lang-specific adjustments; one of the goals is for this to be usable across various language runtimes. > I tried to use your package with rustc (forcing past the isa problem above), > and got this error: > > .../libc.a: archive has no index; run ranlib to add one > > I've faced that with Rust wasm libraries too, like bug 2002612. My current > solution is to run llvm-ranlib in post: > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust/blob/ > 752fe3bcd2d1df989986fc5829445ec937311e74/f/rust.spec#_317 Now included in the package :) Thanks for the notes, let me know how the current version works for you.
Created attachment 1945918 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 5521865 to 5560672
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5560672 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2166379-wasi-libc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05560672-wasi-libc/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.
@jistone @tstellar Any comments (and/or review takers) on the new build? I tried to address your points and would like to move forward with it. Setting needinfo so that bugzilla nags you, but feel free to just drop it if you don't want to add anything :)
This new updates looks fine to me, let's give @jistone a chance to comment too.
Two weeks without comment, I assume this is fine ;-) I would like to ask for a formal fedora review, then. Tom, Josh, any takers?
Why not %autorelease and %autochangelog? It is the recommended default now. > BuildRequires: git You could use just 'git-core' to save a few bytes. But actually, git is not needed at all. Drop this line and '-S git_am' below. Hmm, build fails here: diff -wur /builddir/build/BUILD/wasi-libc-wasi-sdk-19/expected/wasm32-wasi/predefined-macros.txt /builddir/build/BUILD/sysroot/share/wasm32-wasi/predefined-macros.txt --- /builddir/build/BUILD/wasi-libc-wasi-sdk-19/expected/wasm32-wasi/predefined-macros.txt 2023-01-09 17:33:58.000000000 +0100 +++ /builddir/build/BUILD/sysroot/share/wasm32-wasi/predefined-macros.txt 2023-05-13 23:56:33.729836312 +0200 @@ -2480,6 +2480,10 @@ #define __compiler_ATOMIC_SHORT_LOCK_FREE 2 #define __GCC_ATOMIC_TEST_AND_SET_TRUEVAL 1 #define __compiler_ATOMIC_WCHAR_T_LOCK_FREE 2 +#define __GCC_HAVE_SYNC_COMPARE_AND_SWAP_1 1 +#define __GCC_HAVE_SYNC_COMPARE_AND_SWAP_2 1 +#define __GCC_HAVE_SYNC_COMPARE_AND_SWAP_4 1 +#define __GCC_HAVE_SYNC_COMPARE_AND_SWAP_8 1 #define __GNUC_STDC_INLINE__ 1 #define __GNUC_VA_LIST 1 #define __GXX_ABI_VERSION 1002 make: *** [Makefile:674: check-symbols] Error 1 error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.LaaCtr (%build) Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.LaaCtr (%build)
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #16) > Why not %autorelease and %autochangelog? > It is the recommended default now. Because it does not really work without proper dist-git repository setup. I currently have the package in a plain git repo and build it using local mock; the release is reset to 1 and the changelog just reads 'Local build' when I try to convert to rpmautospec. But good point, I will make (hopefully) one final SRPM for the review which will use rpmautospec; this I can then just import into Fedora and start with a fresh history. > > BuildRequires: git > You could use just 'git-core' to save a few bytes. But actually, git is not > needed at all. Drop this line and '-S git_am' below. That's by design, I prefer to let git manage application of my patches (and having it properly setup if I need to adjust them in the future). Switching to git-core though to save the build system some space. > Hmm, build fails here: > diff -wur > /builddir/build/BUILD/wasi-libc-wasi-sdk-19/expected/wasm32-wasi/predefined- > macros.txt > /builddir/build/BUILD/sysroot/share/wasm32-wasi/predefined-macros.txt > --- > /builddir/build/BUILD/wasi-libc-wasi-sdk-19/expected/wasm32-wasi/predefined- > macros.txt 2023-01-09 17:33:58.000000000 +0100 > +++ /builddir/build/BUILD/sysroot/share/wasm32-wasi/predefined-macros.txt > 2023-05-13 23:56:33.729836312 +0200 > @@ -2480,6 +2480,10 @@ > #define __compiler_ATOMIC_SHORT_LOCK_FREE 2 > #define __GCC_ATOMIC_TEST_AND_SET_TRUEVAL 1 > #define __compiler_ATOMIC_WCHAR_T_LOCK_FREE 2 > +#define __GCC_HAVE_SYNC_COMPARE_AND_SWAP_1 1 > +#define __GCC_HAVE_SYNC_COMPARE_AND_SWAP_2 1 > +#define __GCC_HAVE_SYNC_COMPARE_AND_SWAP_4 1 > +#define __GCC_HAVE_SYNC_COMPARE_AND_SWAP_8 1 > #define __GNUC_STDC_INLINE__ 1 > #define __GNUC_VA_LIST 1 > #define __GXX_ABI_VERSION 1002 > make: *** [Makefile:674: check-symbols] Error 1 > error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.LaaCtr (%build) > Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.LaaCtr (%build) Those are new definitions from clang 16; upstream patch that addresses that has been applied. The hopefully final files for the review should thus be these: Spec file: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jstanek/wasi-libc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05923687-wasi-libc/wasi-libc.spec SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jstanek/wasi-libc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05923687-wasi-libc/wasi-libc-19-1.fc39.src.rpm
Created attachment 1964937 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 5560672 to 5925142
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5925142 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2166379-wasi-libc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05925142-wasi-libc/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.
Adressed some typos. Spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jstanek/wasi-libc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05941903-wasi-libc/wasi-libc.spec SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jstanek/wasi-libc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05941903-wasi-libc/wasi-libc-19-1.fc39.src.rpm
Created attachment 1966205 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 5925142 to 5942243
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5942243 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2166379-wasi-libc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05942243-wasi-libc/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.
FYI, there's now a wasi-sdk-20 tag that includes the clang-16 patches. (https://github.com/WebAssembly/wasi-libc/issues/416) I finally got back to trying this again with the Rust package, replacing its "self-contained" with a link to the lib dir from wasi-libc-static, and it appears to work perfectly! Let me take on the formal review as well... One quick note is that the "Provides: bundled(musl)" isn't going anywhere right now, since this doesn't ship a root package. It should probably go under the -static subpackage, and maybe -devel if that also contains musl headers.
Both are good catches! Updated version: SPEC: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jstanek/wasi-libc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05960947-wasi-libc/wasi-libc.spec SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jstanek/wasi-libc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05960947-wasi-libc/wasi-libc-20-1.fc39.src.rpm
Created attachment 1967100 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 5942243 to 5960971
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5960971 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2166379-wasi-libc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05960971-wasi-libc/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.
@jistone Any idea when you plan to do the review?
I haven't done a formal review in a while, hope I'm doing this right... Only two easy things that I see to fix, otherwise LGTM! Package Review ============== Summary: * MUST: install cloudlibc/LICENSE * SHOULD: justify the patch Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [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. [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. jistone: Missing an installed libc-bottom-half/cloudlibc/LICENSE (will need a rename on install to not clobber the root LICENSE) [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [-]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. Note: considering N/A because system libraries don't apply to WASI. [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. [-]: 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. [-]: 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 installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). jistone: these look fine to me [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]: Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if present. Note: Package has .a files: wasi-libc-static. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: 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. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in wasi- libc-static , wasi-libc-devel [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. jistone: only one patch, but has no comments [-]: 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. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: [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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: wasi-libc-static-20-1.fc39.noarch.rpm wasi-libc-devel-20-1.fc39.noarch.rpm wasi-libc-20-1.fc39.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/tmpk8zfks_o')] checks: 31, packages: 3 wasi-libc-devel.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/wasm32-wasi/include/bits/hwcap.h wasi-libc-devel.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/wasm32-wasi/include/bits/io.h wasi-libc-devel.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/wasm32-wasi/include/bits/ioctl_fix.h wasi-libc-devel.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/wasm32-wasi/include/bits/mman.h wasi-libc-devel.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/wasm32-wasi/include/bits/poll.h wasi-libc-devel.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/wasm32-wasi/include/bits/resource.h wasi-libc-devel.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/wasm32-wasi/include/bits/socket.h wasi-libc-static.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/wasm32-wasi/lib/wasm32-wasi/crt1.o /usr/wasm32-wasi/lib/wasm32-wasi/crt1-command.o wasi-libc-static.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/wasm32-wasi/lib/wasm32-wasi/libxnet.a /usr/wasm32-wasi/lib/wasm32-wasi/libcrypt.a:/usr/wasm32-wasi/lib/wasm32-wasi/libdl.a:/usr/wasm32-wasi/lib/wasm32-wasi/libm.a:/usr/wasm32-wasi/lib/wasm32-wasi/libpthread.a:/usr/wasm32-wasi/lib/wasm32-wasi/libresolv.a:/usr/wasm32-wasi/lib/wasm32-wasi/librt.a:/usr/wasm32-wasi/lib/wasm32-wasi/libutil.a wasi-libc-static.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/wasm32-wasi/lib/wasm32-wasi/libc-printscan-long-double.a wasi-libc-static.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/wasm32-wasi/lib/wasm32-wasi/libc-printscan-no-floating-point.a wasi-libc-static.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/wasm32-wasi/lib/wasm32-wasi/libc.a wasi-libc-static.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/wasm32-wasi/lib/wasm32-wasi/libcrypt.a wasi-libc-static.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/wasm32-wasi/lib/wasm32-wasi/libdl.a wasi-libc-static.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/wasm32-wasi/lib/wasm32-wasi/libm.a wasi-libc-static.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/wasm32-wasi/lib/wasm32-wasi/libpthread.a wasi-libc-static.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/wasm32-wasi/lib/wasm32-wasi/libresolv.a wasi-libc-static.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/wasm32-wasi/lib/wasm32-wasi/librt.a wasi-libc-static.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/wasm32-wasi/lib/wasm32-wasi/libutil.a wasi-libc-static.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/wasm32-wasi/lib/wasm32-wasi/libwasi-emulated-getpid.a wasi-libc-static.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/wasm32-wasi/lib/wasm32-wasi/libwasi-emulated-mman.a wasi-libc-static.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/wasm32-wasi/lib/wasm32-wasi/libwasi-emulated-process-clocks.a wasi-libc-static.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/wasm32-wasi/lib/wasm32-wasi/libwasi-emulated-signal.a wasi-libc-static.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/wasm32-wasi/lib/wasm32-wasi/libxnet.a 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 22 errors, 2 warnings, 22 badness; has taken 0.3 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/WebAssembly/wasi-libc//archive/refs/tags/wasi-sdk-20.tar.gz#/wasi-libc-wasi-sdk-20.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0a1c09c8c1da62a1ba214254ff4c9db6b60979c00f648a5eae33831d6ee2840e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0a1c09c8c1da62a1ba214254ff4c9db6b60979c00f648a5eae33831d6ee2840e Requires -------- wasi-libc-static (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): wasi-libc-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): wasi-libc-static Provides -------- wasi-libc-static: bundled(musl) wasi-libc-static wasi-libc-devel: bundled(musl) wasi-libc-devel Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name wasi-libc --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Java, PHP, Ocaml, R, C/C++, Python, SugarActivity, fonts, Perl, Haskell Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
(In reply to Josh Stone from comment #28) > * MUST: install cloudlibc/LICENSE Installed as LICENSE-cloudlibc in the expected place(s). > * SHOULD: justify the patch I have expanded the commit message in the patch including link to the Debian equivalent, and add a comment to the specfile. SPEC: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jstanek/wasi-libc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06063678-wasi-libc/wasi-libc.spec SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jstanek/wasi-libc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06063678-wasi-libc/wasi-libc-20-3.fc39.src.rpm
Created attachment 1970427 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 5960971 to 6063803
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6063803 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2166379-wasi-libc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06063803-wasi-libc/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.
Thanks! (BTW, I'm happy to be a co-maintainer if you like...)
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/wasi-libc
(In reply to Josh Stone from comment #32) > (BTW, I'm happy to be a co-maintainer if you like...) Thanks for the review! I have added you as a co-maintainer in pagure.
FEDORA-2023-0840368fe6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-0840368fe6
FEDORA-2023-0840368fe6 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.