Spec URL: https://pagure.io/crun-wasm/raw/main/f/crun-wasm.spec SRPM URL: https://pagure.io/crun-wasm/blob/main/f/SRPMS/crun-wasm-0.0-1.fc38.src.rpm Description: Provides crun built with wasm support Fedora Account System Username: lsm5 koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=100180586
assigning to Jindrich with prior agreement :)
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5810031 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2188439-crun-wasm/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05810031-crun-wasm/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.
I'm curious, why isn't this just a subpackage of crun, given that this package has no sources, and exclusively contains a single symlink and some RPM metadata?
(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #3) > I'm curious, why isn't this just a subpackage of crun, given that this > package has no sources, and exclusively contains a single symlink and some > RPM metadata? Yes, so openshift is looking to enable wasm support and they will likely be pulling in wasmedge from EPEL. For that, we need `crun-wasm` in EPEL as RHEL doesn't want to ship `crun-wasm` without a wasm library being present in RHEL itself. If crun-wasm is going into epel as a separate package, I'd rather keep the packaging consistent in Fedora as well. That's why the stripping out of crun-wasm into a new package. If it helps, I can include a README in the package or a comment in the spec itself.
Ok, that kind of makes sense. But then you could make it an EPEL-only package? There's no requirement for EPEL packages to also exist in Fedora.
(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #5) > Ok, that kind of makes sense. But then you could make it an EPEL-only > package? There's no requirement for EPEL packages to also exist in Fedora. Sure I could. But I think this would make things more consistent and less confusing. But if FPC strongly feels this should be epel-only, I can live with that.
Can we start EPEL-only review Lokesh if this doesn't go to Fedora?
> But if FPC strongly feels this should be epel-only, I can live with that. I don't feel strongly about this (I hoped to make this clear by prefacing my initial comment with "I'm curious"), and I didn't speak on behalf of the FPC. I only wanted to ask, since the package looks rather unusual.
(In reply to Jindrich Novy from comment #7) > Can we start EPEL-only review Lokesh if this doesn't go to Fedora? alright. I suspect this package won't need frequent changes once setup, so fine by me. (In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #8) > > But if FPC strongly feels this should be epel-only, I can live with that. > > I don't feel strongly about this (I hoped to make this clear by prefacing my > initial comment with "I'm curious"), and I didn't speak on behalf of the > FPC. I only wanted to ask, since the package looks rather unusual. ack. got it. Changed product to Fedora EPEL and version to epel9. Hope that's all we need to make this an epel package review.
epel9 scratch build
(In reply to Lokesh Mandvekar from comment #10) > epel9 scratch build https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=100212683
===== MUST items ===== 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. [ ]: 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. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [ ]: %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. [ ]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Package has no sources or they are generated by developer [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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 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]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: 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]: 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 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: crun-wasm-0.0-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm crun-wasm-0.0-1.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/tmpz2dimubm')] checks: 31, packages: 2 crun-wasm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary crun-wasm crun-wasm.x86_64: W: no-documentation crun-wasm.x86_64: E: no-binary crun-wasm.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/bin/crun-wasm /usr/bin/crun ========================================================================= 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.1 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: 1 crun-wasm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary crun-wasm crun-wasm.x86_64: W: no-documentation crun-wasm.x86_64: E: no-binary crun-wasm.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/bin/crun-wasm /usr/bin/crun 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.0 s Requires -------- crun-wasm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): crun wasm-library Provides -------- crun-wasm: crun-wasm crun-wasm(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2188439 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: R, Ocaml, C/C++, SugarActivity, PHP, Java, Perl, fonts, Haskell, Python Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Looks good. Please note this package just a wrapper so any License related bits doesn't make sense here. On the documentation side - assuming it's also deferred to the symlinked wasm Lokesh?
(In reply to Jindrich Novy from comment #13) > Looks good. Please note this package just a wrapper so any License related > bits doesn't make sense here. But, we do need *some* license specification though, right? > > On the documentation side - assuming it's also deferred to the symlinked > wasm Lokesh? symlink to the crun binary.
Yes, the license would help.
(In reply to Jindrich Novy from comment #15) > Yes, the license would help. So, is this good to go?
Just one more question - why does the package obsolete itself? Epoch: 1 Version: 0.0 Obsoletes: %{name} <= 1.8.4-1 Was there a previous version anywhere? Regarding license - should it be added as text too?
(In reply to Jindrich Novy from comment #17) > Just one more question - why does the package obsolete itself? > > Epoch: 1 > Version: 0.0 > Obsoletes: %{name} <= 1.8.4-1 > > Was there a previous version anywhere? Ugh, you're right. Cruft from when I intended to make crun-wasm separate across the board for all fedoras. Good catch, I'll remove that. > Regarding license - should it be added as text too? Sure, I can add it in the rpm itself. Thanks!
Spec URL: https://pagure.io/crun-wasm/raw/main/f/crun-wasm.spec SRPM URL: https://pagure.io/crun-wasm/blob/main/f/SRPMS/crun-wasm-0.0-1.fc39.src.rpm - Switched to regular changelog as autochangelog may not be supported on rhel yet. - Added GPL2 license - Removed epoch and obsoletes. PTAL. Thanks Jindrich.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5891123 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2188439-crun-wasm/srpm-builds/05891123/builder-live.log.gz Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide. - If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field --- 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.
Spec URL: https://pagure.io/crun-wasm/raw/main/f/crun-wasm.spec SRPM URL: https://pagure.io/crun-wasm/blob/main/f/SRPMS/crun-wasm-0.0-1.fc39.src.rpm stale srpm removed.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5900512 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2188439-crun-wasm/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05900512-crun-wasm/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.
Spec URL: https://pagure.io/crun-wasm/raw/main/f/crun-wasm.spec SRPM URL: https://pagure.io/crun-wasm/blob/main/f/SRPMS/crun-wasm-0.0-1.fc39.src.rpm PTAL
Thanks for clarification of ExclusiveArch in spec - LGTM.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/crun-wasm
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-92c1e25f32 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-92c1e25f32
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-691f514484 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-691f514484
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-691f514484 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-2023-691f514484 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-92c1e25f32 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-2023-92c1e25f32 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-92c1e25f32 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-2023-691f514484 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.