Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/perfetto/perfetto.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/perfetto/perfetto-40.0-1.fc40.src.rpm Description: Perfetto is a production-grade open-source stack for performance instrumentation and trace analysis. It offers services and libraries and for recording system-level and app-level traces, native plus Java heap profiling, a library for analyzing traces using SQL and a web-based UI to visualize and explore multi-GB traces. Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=110787234
Perfetto is a complicated beast and this is the minimum viable packaging I could put together. Notable issues: - ExclusiveArch is because the "bespoke" build system this thing uses only works on arches that Android supports (despite not actually targeting Android when doing a Linux build) - libperfetto.so is unversioned; I couldn't find a sane way to fix the soname (or even where it's configured in the first place) - traced_perf doesn't build and is disabled - unittests require a bundled copy of googletests that isn't actually bundled and fail to build, so they're disabled; integration tests require debugfs and perform active tracing, so they're not appropriate for a distro package - the UI isn't packaged, but one can just use https://ui.perfetto.dev - docs, examples, tools and Python bindings are not packaged
Taking this review.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6812701 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2255751-perfetto/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06812701-perfetto/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_devel_packages Please know that there can be false-positives. --- 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://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/perfetto/perfetto.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/perfetto/perfetto-40.0-1.fc40.src.rpm Changelog: - package the SDK as well
Created attachment 2005969 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6812701 to 6815981
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6815981 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2255751-perfetto/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06815981-perfetto/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - perfetto-sdk : /usr/share/perfetto/sdk/perfetto.h Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_devel_packages - Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_devel_packages Please know that there can be false-positives. --- 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.
It occurs to me that both this package and another one I was looking at just now (https://github.com/charles-lunarg/vk-bootstrap) have an interesting conundrum. In both cases a "library" is shipped as a header + cpp file, with the explicit goal that the consumer will include and link these directly as part of their build. In the latest iteration of perfetto I ship these in %{_datadir}/%{name}/sdk, but perhaps %{_libdir} would be more appropriate? As while these aren't arched per-se, their consumers would definitely be (and header-only packages are arched, and are probably the closest to this).
Spec URL: https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/imrsv/perfetto.spec SRPM URL: https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/imrsv/perfetto-46.0-1.fc39/perfetto-46.0-1.fc40.src.rpm The only change here was to update %{version} to the latest to do the review. @ngompa13 if you still want to do the review please let me know. Otherwise, I'd like to take this on as it will be valuable for the XR SIG and I'd like to add it to Monado and WiVRn. I might still need help. Thanks. [fedora-review-service-build]
Created attachment 2037819 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6815981 to 7629195
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7629195 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2255751-perfetto/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07629195-perfetto/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://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/imrsv/perfetto.spec SRPM URL: https://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/imrsv/perfetto-46.0-1.fc39/perfetto-46.0-1.fc40.src.rpm Looks like for rawhide we need binutils-gold. Added. [fedora-review-service-build]
Created attachment 2037820 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 7629195 to 7629201
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7629201 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2255751-perfetto/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07629201-perfetto/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - perfetto-sdk : /usr/share/perfetto/sdk/perfetto.h Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_devel_packages - Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_devel_packages Please know that there can be false-positives. --- 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 Issues: ======= - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: perfetto-sdk : /usr/share/perfetto/sdk/perfetto.h See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_devel_packages - Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_devel_packages ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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", "Apache License 2.0", "Apache License 2.0 [generated file]", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License". 5782 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jon/Reviews/perfetto/licensecheck.txt [x]: 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. [!]: 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. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: 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 56923 bytes in 2 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]: 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]: systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files. Note: Systemd service file(s) in perfetto [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). [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in perfetto-libs , perfetto-sdk [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: 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. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [!]: Files in /run, var/run and /var/lock uses tmpfiles.d when appropriate [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]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 9646080 bytes in /usr/share [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). Rpmlint ------- Checking: perfetto-46.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm perfetto-libs-46.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm perfetto-sdk-46.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm perfetto-debuginfo-46.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm perfetto-debugsource-46.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm perfetto-46.0-1.fc41.src.rpm =============================================== rpmlint session starts =============================================== rpmlint: 2.5.0 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpttov30x5')] checks: 32, packages: 6 perfetto.x86_64: W: post-without-tmpfile-creation /usr/lib/tmpfiles.d/perfetto.conf perfetto.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /run/perfetto traced perfetto.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /run/perfetto traced perfetto.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary traced perfetto.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary traced_probes perfetto-sdk.x86_64: W: no-documentation perfetto-sdk.x86_64: E: no-binary perfetto-libs.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libperfetto.so libperfetto.so perfetto-sdk.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/perfetto/sdk/perfetto.h ========= 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 7 warnings, 43 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 1.2 s ========== Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: perfetto-debuginfo-46.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm perfetto-libs-debuginfo-46.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm =============================================== rpmlint session starts =============================================== rpmlint: 2.5.0 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmprdfwcsw6')] checks: 32, packages: 2 ========= 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 19 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s ========== Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8): No such file or directory /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8): No such file or directory /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8): No such file or directory /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8): No such file or directory ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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: 32, packages: 6 perfetto.x86_64: W: post-without-tmpfile-creation /usr/lib/tmpfiles.d/perfetto.conf perfetto.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /run/perfetto traced perfetto.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /run/perfetto traced perfetto.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary traced perfetto.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary traced_probes perfetto-sdk.x86_64: W: no-documentation perfetto-sdk.x86_64: E: no-binary perfetto-libs.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libperfetto.so libperfetto.so perfetto-sdk.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/perfetto/sdk/perfetto.h 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 7 warnings, 47 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 1.5 s Unversioned so-files -------------------- perfetto-libs: /usr/lib64/libperfetto.so Source checksums ---------------- https://android.googlesource.com/platform/external/perfetto/+archive/v46.0.tar.gz#/perfetto-v46.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c7a9117776a040a60c66316d65d90878e2dd29abc6267d79822d4d4aa352b330 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 88e0ab9c72fa1dffc948aef6c15f60925737c9a60989279322cfc18aac13bf41 However, diff -r shows no differences Requires -------- perfetto (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh 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) libperfetto.so()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.15)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) perfetto-libs(x86-64) rtld(GNU_HASH) perfetto-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): 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_1.3.15)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) perfetto-sdk (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): perfetto perfetto-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): perfetto-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- perfetto: group(traced) group(traced-consumer) groupmember(traced/traced-consumer) perfetto perfetto(x86-64) user(traced) perfetto-libs: libperfetto.so()(64bit) perfetto-libs perfetto-libs(x86-64) perfetto-sdk: perfetto-sdk perfetto-sdk(x86-64) perfetto-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) perfetto-debuginfo perfetto-debuginfo(x86-64) perfetto-debugsource: perfetto-debugsource perfetto-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -r -n perfetto-46.0-1.fc40.src.rpm Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: R, Perl, fonts, Java, Ocaml, Haskell, SugarActivity, PHP, Python Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Issues: ======= - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: perfetto-sdk : /usr/share/perfetto/sdk/perfetto.h See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_devel_packages - Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_devel_packages [!]: Development files must be in a -devel package The use of -sdk might be tripping this. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines Unversioned soname. [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in perfetto-libs , perfetto-sdk This might be a false finding, but why don't you have the %{?_isa} included everywhere? [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. Missing. [!]: Files in /run, var/run and /var/lock uses tmpfiles.d when appropriate This seems like it's configured correctly in combination with the sysusers. I raise it because I'm not certain if I checked everything required.
Yeah, unversioned soname and the header files are due to how this package works; I don't think we can meaningfully fix these. > This might be a false finding, but why don't you have the %{?_isa} included everywhere? No this is a legit issue, we should use Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} for the -sdk subpackage. Will fix this.
> No this is a legit issue, we should use Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} for the -sdk subpackage. Will fix this. Actually, we should have sdk require -libs, not the main package, as I don't think there's anything in the main package that would be needed to build against perfetto.
Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/perfetto/perfetto.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/perfetto/perfetto-47.0-1.fc42.src.rpm Changelog: - update to 47.0 - fix Requires for sdk subpackage
Created attachment 2045299 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 7629201 to 7974541
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7974541 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2255751-perfetto/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07974541-perfetto/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - perfetto-sdk : /usr/share/perfetto/sdk/perfetto.h Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_devel_packages - Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_devel_packages Please know that there can be false-positives. --- 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 Issues: ======= - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: perfetto-sdk : /usr/share/perfetto/sdk/perfetto.h See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_devel_packages - Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_devel_packages ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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", "Apache License 2.0", "Apache License 2.0 [generated file]", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License". 5827 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jon/Reviews/perfetto/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/perfetto [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. [!]: 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). [!]: 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. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 60419 bytes in 2 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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]: systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files. Note: Systemd service file(s) in perfetto [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). [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in perfetto-libs , perfetto-sdk [?]: 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. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Files in /run, var/run and /var/lock uses tmpfiles.d when appropriate [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]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 9738240 bytes in /usr/share [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). Rpmlint ------- Checking: perfetto-47.0-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm perfetto-libs-47.0-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm perfetto-sdk-47.0-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm perfetto-debuginfo-47.0-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm perfetto-debugsource-47.0-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm perfetto-47.0-1.fc42.src.rpm =============================================== rpmlint session starts =============================================== rpmlint: 2.5.0 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmphry4n5mc')] checks: 32, packages: 6 perfetto.x86_64: W: post-without-tmpfile-creation /usr/lib/tmpfiles.d/perfetto.conf perfetto.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /run/perfetto traced perfetto.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /run/perfetto traced perfetto.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary traced perfetto.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary traced_probes perfetto-sdk.x86_64: W: no-documentation perfetto-sdk.x86_64: E: no-binary perfetto-libs.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libperfetto.so libperfetto.so perfetto-sdk.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/perfetto/sdk/perfetto.h ========= 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 7 warnings, 43 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 1.2 s ========== Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: perfetto-libs-debuginfo-47.0-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm perfetto-debuginfo-47.0-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm =============================================== rpmlint session starts =============================================== rpmlint: 2.5.0 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp2vm4oqtm')] checks: 32, packages: 2 ========= 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 19 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s ========== Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8): No such file or directory /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8): No such file or directory /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8): No such file or directory /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8): No such file or directory ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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: 32, packages: 6 perfetto.x86_64: W: post-without-tmpfile-creation /usr/lib/tmpfiles.d/perfetto.conf perfetto.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /run/perfetto traced perfetto.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /run/perfetto traced perfetto.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary traced perfetto.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary traced_probes perfetto-sdk.x86_64: W: no-documentation perfetto-sdk.x86_64: E: no-binary perfetto-libs.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libperfetto.so libperfetto.so perfetto-sdk.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/perfetto/sdk/perfetto.h 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 7 warnings, 47 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 1.4 s Unversioned so-files -------------------- perfetto-libs: /usr/lib64/libperfetto.so Source checksums ---------------- https://android.googlesource.com/platform/external/perfetto/+archive/v47.0.tar.gz#/perfetto-v47.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2039382739de7ba881aa00773bd61342818075fa34ac13e7b2128d040a295819 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0bf220cac7bc6b27e68323df024afe97425ced97a10871009572cb3c28c43d5c However, diff -r shows no differences Requires -------- perfetto (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh 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) libperfetto.so()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.15)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) perfetto-libs(x86-64) rtld(GNU_HASH) perfetto-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): 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_1.3.15)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) perfetto-sdk (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): perfetto-libs(x86-64) perfetto-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): perfetto-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- perfetto: group(traced) group(traced-consumer) groupmember(traced/traced-consumer) perfetto perfetto(x86-64) user(traced) perfetto-libs: libperfetto.so()(64bit) perfetto-libs perfetto-libs(x86-64) perfetto-sdk: perfetto-sdk perfetto-sdk(x86-64) perfetto-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) perfetto-debuginfo perfetto-debuginfo(x86-64) perfetto-debugsource: perfetto-debugsource perfetto-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -r -n perfetto-47.0-1.fc42.src.rpm Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Java, R, SugarActivity, fonts, PHP, Python, Perl, Haskell Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Issues: ======= - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: perfetto-sdk : /usr/share/perfetto/sdk/perfetto.h See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_devel_packages - Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_devel_packages [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/perfetto Need to add this %dir, likely to the main %files [!]: Development files must be in a -devel package [!]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines These are all the same for me. Why not just use -devel vs -sdk? [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in perfetto-libs , perfetto-sdk This seems to be fine for the purpose of being able to install the libs or libs+sdk without the main package files. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. No explanation of the one patch and why there is not an upstream bug/PR. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. Missing.
Davide, What can we do to move this forward? I'd like to use perfetto as part of the wivrn build before submitting wivrn for inclusion.
Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/perfetto/perfetto.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/perfetto/perfetto-47.0-1.fc42.src.rpm Changelog: - document attribution for the includes patch - own %{_datadir}/%{name} in the libs subpackage I can't figure out the tests, the targets mentioned in https://perfetto.dev/docs/contributing/testing don't seem to actually exist. As for -devel vs -sdk, the problem is that what we're currently packaging in -sdk is a header and a C++ file meant to be included in projects using this. There might well be a way to also package a proper -devel package with headers and libraries to dynamically link against but I have not found it so far.
Created attachment 2050738 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 7974541 to 8111963
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8111963 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2255751-perfetto/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08111963-perfetto/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - perfetto-sdk : /usr/share/perfetto/sdk/perfetto.h Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_devel_packages - Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_devel_packages Please know that there can be false-positives. --- 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 Issues: ======= - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: perfetto-sdk : /usr/share/perfetto/sdk/perfetto.h See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_devel_packages - Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_devel_packages ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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", "Apache License 2.0", "Apache License 2.0 [generated file]", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License". 5827 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jon/Reviews/perfetto/licensecheck.txt [x]: 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. [!]: 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. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 60419 bytes in 2 files. [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]: 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]: 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]: systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files. Note: Systemd service file(s) in perfetto [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: 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 perfetto-libs , perfetto-sdk [?]: 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. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [!]: Files in /run, var/run and /var/lock uses tmpfiles.d when appropriate [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]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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: [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 9738240 bytes in /usr/share [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). Rpmlint ------- Checking: perfetto-47.0-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm perfetto-libs-47.0-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm perfetto-sdk-47.0-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm perfetto-debuginfo-47.0-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm perfetto-debugsource-47.0-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm perfetto-47.0-1.fc42.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpc6e3fe8h')] checks: 32, packages: 6 perfetto.x86_64: W: post-without-tmpfile-creation /usr/lib/tmpfiles.d/perfetto.conf perfetto.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /run/perfetto traced perfetto.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /run/perfetto traced perfetto.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary traced perfetto.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary traced_probes perfetto-sdk.x86_64: W: no-documentation perfetto-sdk.x86_64: E: no-binary perfetto-libs.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libperfetto.so libperfetto.so perfetto-sdk.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/perfetto/sdk/perfetto.h 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 7 warnings, 44 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 1.2 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: perfetto-debuginfo-47.0-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm perfetto-libs-debuginfo-47.0-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmppjpnk8t2')] checks: 32, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 19 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8): No such file or directory /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8): No such file or directory /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8): No such file or directory /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8): No such file or directory ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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: 32, packages: 6 perfetto.x86_64: W: post-without-tmpfile-creation /usr/lib/tmpfiles.d/perfetto.conf perfetto.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /run/perfetto traced perfetto.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /run/perfetto traced perfetto.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary traced perfetto.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary traced_probes perfetto-sdk.x86_64: W: no-documentation perfetto-sdk.x86_64: E: no-binary perfetto-libs.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libperfetto.so libperfetto.so perfetto-sdk.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/perfetto/sdk/perfetto.h 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 7 warnings, 48 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 1.4 s Unversioned so-files -------------------- perfetto-libs: /usr/lib64/libperfetto.so Source checksums ---------------- https://android.googlesource.com/platform/external/perfetto/+archive/v47.0.tar.gz#/perfetto-v47.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2039382739de7ba881aa00773bd61342818075fa34ac13e7b2128d040a295819 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3ec75c14b69a4d45cd2e0413d9ded0895b2ab7ed06942d4e651945ea940863d6 However, diff -r shows no differences Requires -------- perfetto (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh 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) libperfetto.so()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.15)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) perfetto-libs(x86-64) rtld(GNU_HASH) perfetto-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): 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_1.3.15)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) perfetto-sdk (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): perfetto-libs(x86-64) perfetto-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): perfetto-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- perfetto: group(traced) group(traced-consumer) groupmember(traced/traced-consumer) perfetto perfetto(x86-64) user(traced) perfetto-libs: libperfetto.so()(64bit) perfetto-libs perfetto-libs(x86-64) perfetto-sdk: perfetto-sdk perfetto-sdk(x86-64) perfetto-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) perfetto-debuginfo perfetto-debuginfo(x86-64) perfetto-debugsource: perfetto-debugsource perfetto-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -r -n perfetto-47.0-1.fc42.src.rpm Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: fonts, Ocaml, SugarActivity, Perl, R, Haskell, Java, PHP, Python Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Issues: ======= - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: perfetto-sdk : /usr/share/perfetto/sdk/perfetto.h See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_devel_packages - Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_devel_packages These are fine for now, relying on providing a -sdk instead. [!]: Development files must be in a -devel package Using a -sdk instead. [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in perfetto-libs , perfetto-sdk This seems correct and intentional to be able to install the libs or sdk independently without anything else. Is the perfetto-libs subpackage useful even without the main package files? It seems like it should be. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. Upstream tests are not accessible. [!]: Files in /run, var/run and /var/lock uses tmpfiles.d when appropriate Currently not using tmpfiles.d. Should we be? [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Should the SDK be noarch? Seems so. I also recommend we use the https://github.com/google/perfetto repo as the source because it's easier to see what is going on, etc. The Google source control system is ... very Googly. Both are fine so this is just a preference.
> Is the perfetto-libs subpackage useful even without the main package files? It seems like it should be. Yes, it provides the shared library that things using perfetto can leverage. > Currently not using tmpfiles.d. Should we be? We actually are using tmpfiles.d already :) > Should the SDK be noarch? Seems so. The SDK has a Requires on the -libs subpackage which is arched, so it cannot be noarch or we'd end up with FTIs. > I also recommend we use the https://github.com/google/perfetto repo as the source because it's easier to see what is going on, etc. The Google source control system is ... very Googly. Both are fine so this is just a preference. I generally prefer to avoid mirrors if possible as they tend to get out of date / diverge and that can be painful to reconcile down the road.
APPROVED
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perfetto
FEDORA-2024-a56d4e1c2d (perfetto-47.0-1.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-a56d4e1c2d
FEDORA-2024-a56d4e1c2d (perfetto-47.0-1.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2024-652f4a5a52 (perfetto-48.0-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-652f4a5a52
FEDORA-2024-652f4a5a52 has been pushed to the Fedora 41 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-652f4a5a52 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-652f4a5a52 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2024-652f4a5a52 (perfetto-48.0-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.