Spec URL: https://elmarco.fedorapeople.org/aemu.spec SRPM URL: https://elmarco.fedorapeople.org/aemu-0.1.2-1.20231002gitd6e6b99b.fc40.src.rpm Description: Android emulator libraries, used by gfxstream (for qemu virtio-gpu) Fedora Account System Username: elmarco
I would recommend using %autosetup. devel subpackage does not own %{_libdir}/pkgconfig or depend on package owning it. Otherwise it seems good. Also I think %{?ldconfig_scriptlets} should be used for forward compatibility if it gets undefined. It is no-op on recent releases anyway.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [ ]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [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]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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. [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", "Apache License 2.0". 37 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/2241701-aemu/licensecheck.txt [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [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]: 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: Test run failed [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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check 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. [ ]: %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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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: aemu-0.1.2-1.20231002gitd6e6b99b.fc40.aarch64.rpm aemu-devel-0.1.2-1.20231002gitd6e6b99b.fc40.aarch64.rpm aemu-debuginfo-0.1.2-1.20231002gitd6e6b99b.fc40.aarch64.rpm aemu-debugsource-0.1.2-1.20231002gitd6e6b99b.fc40.aarch64.rpm aemu-0.1.2-1.20231002gitd6e6b99b.fc40.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/tmp0p22o_tt')] checks: 31, packages: 5 aemu-devel.aarch64: W: no-documentation aemu.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: aemu-20231002.tar.xz 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.2 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: aemu-debuginfo-0.1.2-1.20231002gitd6e6b99b.fc40.aarch64.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/tmpkehcvro0')] checks: 31, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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 aemu.aarch64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libaemu-snapshot.so.0.1.2 _ZN7android4base11getFileSizeEiPm (/usr/lib64/libaemu-snapshot.so.0.1.2) aemu.aarch64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libaemu-snapshot.so.0.1.2 _ZN7android4base16getHighResTimeUsEv (/usr/lib64/libaemu-snapshot.so.0.1.2) aemu.aarch64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libaemu-snapshot.so.0.1.2 _ZN7android4base11StdioStream5closeEv (/usr/lib64/libaemu-snapshot.so.0.1.2) aemu.aarch64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libaemu-snapshot.so.0.1.2 _ZN7android4base6Stream7getBe32Ev (/usr/lib64/libaemu-snapshot.so.0.1.2) aemu.aarch64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libaemu-snapshot.so.0.1.2 _ZN7android4base11StdioStreamC1EOS1_ (/usr/lib64/libaemu-snapshot.so.0.1.2) aemu.aarch64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libaemu-snapshot.so.0.1.2 _ZN7android4base17CompressingStreamC1ERNS0_6StreamE (/usr/lib64/libaemu-snapshot.so.0.1.2) aemu.aarch64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libaemu-snapshot.so.0.1.2 _ZN7android4base17CompressingStreamD1Ev (/usr/lib64/libaemu-snapshot.so.0.1.2) aemu.aarch64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libaemu-snapshot.so.0.1.2 _ZN7android4base6Stream7putBe64Em (/usr/lib64/libaemu-snapshot.so.0.1.2) aemu.aarch64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libaemu-snapshot.so.0.1.2 _ZN7android4base11StdioStreamD1Ev (/usr/lib64/libaemu-snapshot.so.0.1.2) aemu.aarch64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libaemu-snapshot.so.0.1.2 _ZN7android4base6Stream7getBe64Ev (/usr/lib64/libaemu-snapshot.so.0.1.2) aemu.aarch64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libaemu-snapshot.so.0.1.2 _ZN7android4base19DecompressingStreamD1Ev (/usr/lib64/libaemu-snapshot.so.0.1.2) aemu.aarch64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libaemu-snapshot.so.0.1.2 _ZN7android4base6Stream7putBe32Ej (/usr/lib64/libaemu-snapshot.so.0.1.2) aemu.aarch64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libaemu-snapshot.so.0.1.2 __emu_log_print (/usr/lib64/libaemu-snapshot.so.0.1.2) aemu.aarch64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libaemu-snapshot.so.0.1.2 _ZN7android4base19DecompressingStreamC1ERNS0_6StreamE (/usr/lib64/libaemu-snapshot.so.0.1.2) aemu-devel.aarch64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 14 errors, 1 warnings, 14 badness; has taken 2.0 s Requires -------- aemu (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit) libaemu-base.so.0()(64bit) libaemu-logging.so.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.11)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.13)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.7)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) aemu-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config aemu(aarch-64) libaemu-base.so.0()(64bit) libaemu-host-common.so.0()(64bit) libaemu-logging.so.0()(64bit) libaemu-snapshot.so.0()(64bit) aemu-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): aemu-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- aemu: aemu aemu(aarch-64) libaemu-base.so.0()(64bit) libaemu-host-common.so.0()(64bit) libaemu-logging.so.0()(64bit) libaemu-snapshot.so.0()(64bit) aemu-devel: aemu-devel aemu-devel(aarch-64) pkgconfig(aemu_base) pkgconfig(aemu_host_common) pkgconfig(aemu_logging) pkgconfig(aemu_snapshot) aemu-debuginfo: aemu-debuginfo aemu-debuginfo(aarch-64) debuginfo(build-id) libaemu-base.so.0.1.2-0.1.2-1.20231002gitd6e6b99b.fc40.aarch64.debug()(64bit) libaemu-host-common.so.0.1.2-0.1.2-1.20231002gitd6e6b99b.fc40.aarch64.debug()(64bit) libaemu-logging.so.0.1.2-0.1.2-1.20231002gitd6e6b99b.fc40.aarch64.debug()(64bit) libaemu-snapshot.so.0.1.2-0.1.2-1.20231002gitd6e6b99b.fc40.aarch64.debug()(64bit) aemu-debugsource: aemu-debugsource aemu-debugsource(aarch-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2241701 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: PHP, Perl, Haskell, SugarActivity, fonts, R, Python, Ocaml, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) The source can be downloaded using the full git hash. Consider using %global commit d6e6b99ba6ec2b6b2502aa46dcb57d6b0fa53787 Source0: https://android.googlesource.com/platform/hardware/google/aemu/+archive/%{commit}.tar.gz b) Maybe check if upstream will add a license file c) Build failures on ppc64, s390x and i686 https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=107283304
(In reply to Petr Menšík from comment #1) > I would recommend using %autosetup. > ok > devel subpackage does not own %{_libdir}/pkgconfig or depend on package > owning it. Otherwise it seems good. I don't think it's necessary, looking at other packages. > > Also I think %{?ldconfig_scriptlets} should be used for forward > compatibility if it gets undefined. It is no-op on recent releases anyway. I'll drop it. thanks
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #2) > > Comments: > a) The source can be downloaded using the full git hash. Consider using > %global commit d6e6b99ba6ec2b6b2502aa46dcb57d6b0fa53787 > Source0: > https://android.googlesource.com/platform/hardware/google/aemu/+archive/ > %{commit}.tar.gz That creates issue with file naming, subdirectory etc.. Not really worth it imho, but I am all for elegant working suggestions :) > b) Maybe check if upstream will add a license file I reached them, in the meantime I added a LICENSE file > c) Build failures on ppc64, s390x and i686 > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=107283304 Yeah, updated thanks
(In reply to Marc-Andre Lureau from comment #3) > (In reply to Petr Menšík from comment #1) > > devel subpackage does not own %{_libdir}/pkgconfig or depend on package > > owning it. Otherwise it seems good. > > I don't think it's necessary, looking at other packages. I am afraid it is necessary. Either add Requires to package owning the directory or make it part of your package. This is part of MUST section, so it is not optional: [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Read more about at at [1]. I would solve it by adding after %package devel: Requires: pkg-config%{_isa} 1. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/UnownedDirectories/
(In reply to Petr Menšík from comment #5) > Read more about at at [1]. I would solve it by adding after %package devel: > Requires: pkg-config%{_isa} thanks, done
Upstream added a LICENSE file, and fixed some headers. Last version: Spec URL: https://elmarco.fedorapeople.org/aemu.spec SRPM URL: https://elmarco.fedorapeople.org/aemu-0.1.2-1.20231002gitdd8b929c.fc40.src.rpm
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6541992 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2241701-aemu/srpm-builds/06541992/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://elmarco.fedorapeople.org/aemu.spec SRPM URL: https://elmarco.fedorapeople.org/aemu-0.1.2-1.20231018gitdd8b929c.fc40.src.rpm
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6541999 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2241701-aemu/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06541999-aemu/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.
version information in the Release field is deprecated https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#traditional-versioning should be Version: 0.1.2^%{gitdate}git%{gitversion} https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_snapshots Requires: pkg-config%{_isa} in the devel package should not be needed, it's autogenerated: rpm -qp --requires ./results_aemu/0.1.2/1.20231018gitdd8b929c.fc39/aemu-devel-0.1.2-1.20231018gitdd8b929c.fc39.x86_64.rpm /usr/bin/pkg-config ...
(In reply to Pavel Solovev from comment #11) > version information in the Release field is deprecated > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/ > #traditional-versioning > should be Version: 0.1.2^%{gitdate}git%{gitversion} > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/ > #_snapshots fixed > Requires: pkg-config%{_isa} in the devel package should not be needed, it's > autogenerated: > rpm -qp --requires > ./results_aemu/0.1.2/1.20231018gitdd8b929c.fc39/aemu-devel-0.1.2-1. > 20231018gitdd8b929c.fc39.x86_64.rpm > /usr/bin/pkg-config > ... removed thanks
Spec URL: https://elmarco.fedorapeople.org/aemu.spec SRPM URL: https://elmarco.fedorapeople.org/aemu-0.1.2%5e20231018gitdd8b929c-1.src.rpm
Created attachment 1994416 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6541999 to 6543323
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6543323 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2241701-aemu/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06543323-aemu/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.
good to go? @daron439 @pemensik @benson_muite thanks
> Release: 1 %{?dist} tag is missing Release: 1%{?dist} > %dir %{_includedir}/aemu/ > %{_includedir}/aemu/* Can be simplified to %{_includedir}/aemu/
Spec URL: https://elmarco.fedorapeople.org/aemu.spec SRPM URL: https://elmarco.fedorapeople.org/aemu-0.1.2%5e20231018gitdd8b929c-1.fc40.src.rpm
Created attachment 1994434 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6543323 to 6543765
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6543765 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2241701-aemu/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06543765-aemu/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.
@daron439 @pemensik @benson_muite ping
It seems possible to build and run the tests. Add dependencies on gtest-devel and gmock-devel On Fedora 38 on AArch64, all tests pass when using Clang, one test fails when using Gcc Third party code has different licenses: https://android.googlesource.com/platform/hardware/google/aemu/+/refs/heads/main/third-party/cuda/include/host-common it is referenced by some of the included headers in the devel package, but commit dd8b929c247ce9872c775e0e5ddc4300011d0e82 indicates they can be patched out.
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #22) > It seems possible to build and run the tests. Add dependencies on > gtest-devel and gmock-devel > On Fedora 38 on AArch64, all tests pass when using Clang, one test fails > when using Gcc It fails to build on f38 for me when I enable tests: /usr/bin/ld: libaemu-host-common.so.0.1.2: undefined reference to symbol '_ZN5emugl12AbortMessageC1EPKcS2_iNS_10FatalErrorE' > > Third party code has different licenses: > https://android.googlesource.com/platform/hardware/google/aemu/+/refs/heads/ > main/third-party/cuda/include/host-common > it is referenced by some of the included headers in the devel package, but > commit dd8b929c247ce9872c775e0e5ddc4300011d0e82 > indicates they can be patched out. What do you suggest to do now? thanks
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_compiler_macros https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=108326166 Upstream recommends clang, but it would be good to check if they are aware of failing test with gcc. Maybe an extra compilation option needs to be activated? The external headers do not seem to be packaged, but they are referenced by some of the packaged headers. Perhaps ask code maintainers and check what other distros do.
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #24) > See: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_compiler_macros > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=108326166 > > Upstream recommends clang, but it would be good to check if they are aware > of failing test with gcc. > Maybe an extra compilation option needs to be activated? build.log says "No tests were found!!!" If I ENABLE_VKCEREAL_TESTS=ON, I get the same linking error, even with clang: "/usr/bin/ld: /tmp/lto-llvm-b5d429.o: undefined reference to symbol '_ZN5emugl14setDieFunctionESt8optionalISt8functionIFvvEEE'" > The external headers do not seem to be packaged, but they are referenced by > some of the packaged headers. > Perhaps ask code maintainers and check what other distros do. The commit says they aren't needed by gfxstream. I'll drop them.
Spec URL: https://elmarco.fedorapeople.org/aemu.spec SRPM URL: https://elmarco.fedorapeople.org/aemu-0.1.2%5e20231031gitdd8b929c-1.fc40.src.rpm
Created attachment 1996319 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6543765 to 6583957
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6583957 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2241701-aemu/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06583957-aemu/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.
Hi Benson, anything else? thanks
With static linking tests can run: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=108534700 ringbuffer tests seem to fail sporadically. Tests do not build with dynamic linking.
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #30) > With static linking tests can run: > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=108534700 > > ringbuffer tests seem to fail sporadically. Tests do not build with dynamic > linking. ok, I reported the issues to the maintainers. Is it ok without tests at this point? thanks
It seems tests will not run if it is not statically linked. Maybe a path needs to be adjusted so that appropriate functions are found to allow for static linking? It is possible to run a subset of the tests: https://google.github.io/googletest/advanced.html#running-a-subset-of-the-tests or add a patch to skip failing tests: https://google.github.io/googletest/advanced.html#skipping-test-execution
Spec URL: https://elmarco.fedorapeople.org/aemu.spec SRPM URL: https://elmarco.fedorapeople.org/aemu-0.1.2%5e20231031gitdd8b929c-1.fc40.src.rpm (In reply to Benson Muite from comment #32) > It seems tests will not run if it is not statically linked. Maybe a > path needs to be adjusted so that appropriate functions are found to > allow for static linking? This is for upstream to handle at this point. > > It is possible to run a subset of the tests: > https://google.github.io/googletest/advanced.html#running-a-subset-of-the- > tests > or add a patch to skip failing tests: > https://google.github.io/googletest/advanced.html#skipping-test-execution Ok, I added a patch to skip the failing tests.
Created attachment 1997430 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6583957 to 6603240
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6603240 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2241701-aemu/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06603240-aemu/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.
Hi @benson_muite let me know if anything else missing or give review+. Thanks!
Fedora 39 build failed. Probably another test you want to disable. Does build on all architectures. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=108836782 Can you add a comment in the spec file why a static library build is used and add a link to the reported issue upstream so that if it is fixed, one could use a shared library. This can be done on import. Approved.
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #37) > Fedora 39 build failed. Probably another test you want to disable. Does > build on all architectures. > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=108836782 > > Can you add a comment in the spec file why a static library build is used > and add a link to the reported issue upstream > so that if it is fixed, one could use a shared library. This can be done on > import. Unfortunately, this is not very helpful: https://android-review.googlesource.com/c/platform/hardware/google/aemu/+/2817313 I don't know of better ways to report an issue but to contact Gurchetan Singh <gurchetansingh> directly.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/aemu
FEDORA-2023-9c042511cd has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-9c042511cd
FEDORA-2023-9c042511cd has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.