Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/veristat/veristat.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/veristat/veristat-0.1-1.fc39.src.rpm Description: veristat is the tool for loading, verifying, and debugging BPF object files. It allows to work with BPF object files convenient and quickly, without having to use or modify corresponding user-space parts of an application. Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=99507069
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5740758 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2184233-veristat/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05740758-veristat/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.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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. [x]: 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* BSD 2-Clause License", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "BSD 2-Clause License", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1". 106 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/veristat/2184233-veristat/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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 10240 bytes in 1 files. [ ]: 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]: 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: [-]: 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). [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %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]: 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: 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: veristat-0.1-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm veristat-debuginfo-0.1-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm veristat-debugsource-0.1-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm veristat-0.1-1.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/tmpyopdg5a9')] checks: 31, packages: 4 veristat.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary veristat ==================================== 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 4.5 s ==================================== Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: veristat-debuginfo-0.1-1.fc39.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/tmpyqwu6mlz')] checks: 31, packages: 1 ==================================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 2.2 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: 3 veristat.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary veristat 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 4.4 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/libbpf/libbpf/archive/v1.1.0/libbpf-1.1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5da826c968fdb8a2f714701cfef7a4b7078be030cf58b56143b245816301cbb8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5da826c968fdb8a2f714701cfef7a4b7078be030cf58b56143b245816301cbb8 https://github.com/libbpf/veristat/archive/v0.1/veristat-0.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d46f774288223dda6c3be3dc7c82b2ceffbe844f85326a428bc3cb71064cdd15 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d46f774288223dda6c3be3dc7c82b2ceffbe844f85326a428bc3cb71064cdd15 Requires -------- veristat (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): glibc libc.so.6()(64bit) libelf.so.1()(64bit) libelf.so.1(ELFUTILS_1.0)(64bit) libelf.so.1(ELFUTILS_1.3)(64bit) libelf.so.1(ELFUTILS_1.5)(64bit) libelf.so.1(ELFUTILS_1.6)(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) libz.so.1(ZLIB_1.2.3.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) veristat-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): veristat-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- veristat: bundled(libbpf) veristat veristat(x86-64) veristat-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) veristat-debuginfo veristat-debuginfo(x86-64) veristat-debugsource: veristat-debugsource veristat-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2184233 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: PHP, Java, fonts, Haskell, Perl, Ruby, Python, R, SugarActivity, Ocaml Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH Comments: a) Maybe helpful to update upstream README so it is similar to https://github.com/libbpf/libbpf Would also help justifying building from GitHub instead of Linux source tree b) libbpf-static is packaged: https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/libbpf/libbpf-static/ Can this be used instead of bundling?
Hi Benson! Davide is on sabbatical so I'll be taking this over, will open a new review request that obsoletes this one once we go through the points you raised.
Hi Benson, I'm the author of veristat tool. I'll try to answer your questions. a) Regarding README, yep, it's definitely pretty bare and we should improve it. It used to be kernel-internal tool, so most of its documentation was contained in kernel commits. I did put links to it in Github README, but adding a bit more information and examples is on my TODO list. b) As for building from Github. I've been told that it's easier for packagers to have a dedicated mirror, which is what we do with libbpf and bpftool. So just following existing patterns. Another complication is that veristat in kernel repo is part of a BPF selftests, which is a very complicated setup with lots of dependencies and requirements that are not relevant to veristat itself, yet you'd have to satisfy nevertheless just because of selftests's Makefile organization. So I think it makes life easier for everyone to have Github mirror for veristat, where we ca, going forward, also maintain cleaner CHANGELOG, README, etc. c) Regarding libbpf-static. Lots of libbpf-using project do intentionally want to use specific libbpf version at exact commit, because libbpf is not a typical library and specific version (and sometimes even unreleased commit) is important. Beyond user-facing API, libbpf is a BPF loader, which processes complicated BPF object files and supports various features inside it (the list is too long to list, but it's like an entire runtime, which works tightly together with kernel). So it is important for applications to have a precise and tight control over exact libbpf commit to be used. So tl;dr, it's best to use exact libbpf version as archived during veristat release.
Thanks for the clarification and the useful tool. The libbpf version is the same as the one that is packaged, not a specific commit. As it is static, not so much difference from bundling, however maybe the build can use the packaged version when the same release is used? This would add a conditional in the spec file. Not sure if compilation options are significantly different.
We can add a knob for using libbpf-static, but tbh I don't really see the value in building against libbpf-static here. As Andrii said we need tight control on the version, so this is bound to move independently from the system one, even if it happens to match now. I'd rather be explicit and just use a bundled library and make it clear why we do so.
Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/veristat/veristat.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/veristat/veristat-0.1-1.fc39.src.rpm Changelog: - clarify why we use a bundled and pinned libbpf
Created attachment 1963374 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 5740758 to 5897248
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5897248 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2184233-veristat/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05897248-veristat/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.
Ok, possibly once get to 1.0 synchronizing libbpf and veristat releases would be helpful for users. Approved.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/veristat
FEDORA-2023-87db381fbd has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-87db381fbd
FEDORA-2023-87db381fbd has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-cb0e70983e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-cb0e70983e
FEDORA-2023-cc5ec91165 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-cc5ec91165
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-1b4d1ee18e has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-1b4d1ee18e
FEDORA-2023-cb0e70983e has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-cb0e70983e \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-cb0e70983e See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-1b4d1ee18e has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-1b4d1ee18e See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-cc5ec91165 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-cc5ec91165 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-cc5ec91165 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-af560f3884 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-af560f3884
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-af560f3884 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-af560f3884 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-cc5ec91165 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-cb0e70983e has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-1b4d1ee18e has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-af560f3884 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.