Spec URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/cpuinfo.spec SRPM URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/cpuinfo-23.2.14-1.giteb4a667.fc39.src.rpm FAS: trix Needed for building/packaging of TensorFlow lite see https://github.com/tensorflow/tensorflow/blob/master/tensorflow/lite/CMakeLists.txt ln 149 And its utilities are useful ex/ > /usr/bin/isa-info Scalar instructions: LAHF/SAHF: yes LZCNT: yes POPCNT: yes TBM: no BMI: yes BMI2: yes ADCX/ADOX: yes Memory instructions: MOVBE: yes PREFETCH: no PREFETCHW: yes PREFETCHWT1: no CLZERO: no SIMD extensions: MMX: yes MMX+: yes 3dnow!: no Initially only building x86_64 because the ultimate goal is to get tensor flow lite building on x86_64 first, then expand to other arches.
I think it is appropriate to change the description of -devel package, like, The package contains the development and header files for cpuinfo. > %{_datadir}/%{name}/*.cmake Maybe need to add `%dir %{_datadir}/%{name}` above it to own the directory it created.
These changes made and available here Spec URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/cpuinfo.spec SRPM URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/cpuinfo-23.2.14-2.giteb4a667.fc39.src.rpm
> Initially only building x86_64 because the ultimate goal is to get tensor > flow lite building on x86_64 first, then expand to other arches. Please don't do this, it just adds extra work later and it builds and runs fine on other arches.
Drop the Group, it's long obsolete. > > Initially only building x86_64 because the ultimate goal is to get tensor > > flow lite building on x86_64 first, then expand to other arches. > > Please don't do this, it just adds extra work later and it builds and runs > fine on other arches. Your description literally lists other arches. Also runs fine on a bunch of aarch64 devices.
I had forgotten about this package after 4 months, are you taking over the review ?
Sorry for the long delay in reviewing this package. I have some free time these days, if you are still interested.
(In reply to Felix Wang from comment #6) > Sorry for the long delay in reviewing this package. I have some free time > these days, if you are still interested. Yes please, else I can do it.
> Group: Development/Libraries > ExclusiveArch: x86_64 In addition to the issues of the building architecture and group, the Peter Robinson pointed, there are some other issues: > License: BSD license should be SPDX license format. > %files > %{_bindir}/* You should not use the wildcard to include files in the %{_bindir} directory, see: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_explicit_lists. Also I suggest that it may be proper to put the small CLI tools in -tools sub-package or -devel subpackage. The last one, I see that it can be better to enable the tests in %check section when possible. --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [ ]: 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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [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. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "BSD 2-Clause License", "*No copyright* BSD 2-Clause License". 543 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/cpuinfo/licensecheck.txt [ ]: 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 20480 bytes in 1 files. [ ]: 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). [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. [ ]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define patch_level 2 [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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. ===== 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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: cpuinfo-23.2.14-2.giteb4a667.fc38.x86_64.rpm cpuinfo-devel-23.2.14-2.giteb4a667.fc38.x86_64.rpm cpuinfo-debuginfo-23.2.14-2.giteb4a667.fc38.x86_64.rpm cpuinfo-debugsource-23.2.14-2.giteb4a667.fc38.x86_64.rpm cpuinfo-23.2.14-2.giteb4a667.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/tmp73stow27')] checks: 31, packages: 5 cpuinfo.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cache-info cpuinfo.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cpu-info cpuinfo.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cpuid-dump cpuinfo.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary isa-info cpuinfo.x86_64: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: cpuinfo-debuginfo-23.2.14-2.giteb4a667.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/tmpgsv7qe8q')] 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 cpuinfo.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cache-info cpuinfo.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cpu-info cpuinfo.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cpuid-dump cpuinfo.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary isa-info cpuinfo.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.2 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/pytorch/cpuinfo/archive/eb4a6674bfe9cf91b63b9817412ae5f6862c8432/cpuinfo-eb4a667.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : cf243e7ac07cd5e2ac58dcb29f8a9047b7887452212aead2ddf1ceda45cc66dd CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : cf243e7ac07cd5e2ac58dcb29f8a9047b7887452212aead2ddf1ceda45cc66dd Requires -------- cpuinfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libcpuinfo.so.23.2.14()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) cpuinfo-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config cpuinfo(x86-64) libcpuinfo.so.23.2.14()(64bit) cpuinfo-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cpuinfo-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- cpuinfo: cpuinfo cpuinfo(x86-64) libcpuinfo.so.23.2.14()(64bit) cpuinfo-devel: cpuinfo-devel cpuinfo-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(libcpuinfo) cpuinfo-debuginfo: cpuinfo-debuginfo cpuinfo-debuginfo(x86-64) debuginfo(build-id) libcpuinfo.so.23.2.14-23.2.14-2.giteb4a667.fc38.x86_64.debug()(64bit) cpuinfo-debugsource: cpuinfo-debugsource cpuinfo-debugsource(x86-64) 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 cpuinfo --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-38-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Python, fonts, Perl, Java, R, PHP, Haskell, SugarActivity, Ocaml Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Spec URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/cpuinfo.spec SRPM URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/cpuinfo-23.2.14-3.giteb4a667.fc39.src.rpm Issue listed above addressed On the bin/*, the 3 or 4 app explicitly listed. These are generally useful, IMO the user will expect them in the main package.
It looks good for me. @pbrobinson May I ask you to further recheck this? if you also think it is fine, I'll approve this. Thanks.
Yes, looks good to me! And I've tested it on aarch64 and works as expected.
Thanks Peter Robinson. Approved.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/cpuinfo