Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jjardon/buildbox/fedora-40-x86_64/07835566-buildbox/buildbox.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jjardon/buildbox/fedora-40-x86_64/07835566-buildbox/buildbox-1.2.9-1.fc40.src.rpm Description: buildbox provides a set of building blocks to execute actions conforming to the Remote Execution API, also supporting the Remote Worker API. Fedora Account System Username: jjardon
More information following the guidelines at https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/New_Package_Process_for_New_Contributors/#create_your_review_request: - This is my first package so any feedback is very welcome - This package is needed to build a new version of an existing fedora package (buildstream). See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2250127 - link to successfull buil: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jjardon/buildbox/build/7835566/
Updated spec file / srpm after some feedback: - Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jjardon/buildbox/fedora-40-x86_64/07846920-buildbox/buildbox.spec - SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jjardon/buildbox/fedora-40-x86_64/07846920-buildbox/buildbox-1.2.9-1.fc40.src.rpm - Build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jjardon/buildbox/build/7846920/
Submitted issue upstrea about the need of using "-Wno-format-security": https://gitlab.com/BuildGrid/buildbox/buildbox/-/issues/174
Another update to update the package to latest release: - Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jjardon/buildbox/fedora-40-x86_64/07848758-buildbox/buildbox.spec - SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jjardon/buildbox/fedora-40-x86_64/07848758-buildbox/buildbox-1.2.12-1.fc40.src.rpm - Build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jjardon/buildbox/build/7848758/
Well, fedora-review-service is not running for some reason, so I decided to run fedora-review locally. But that is also broken: $ fedora-review -b 2302674 INFO: Processing bugzilla bug: 2302674 INFO: Getting .spec and .srpm Urls from : 2302674 INFO: --> SRPM url: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jjardon/buildbox/fedora-40-x86_64/07848758-buildbox/buildbox-1.2.12-1.fc40.src.rpm INFO: --> Spec url: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jjardon/buildbox/fedora-40-x86_64/07848758-buildbox/buildbox.spec INFO: Using review directory: /home/mcatanzaro/2302674-buildbox INFO: Downloading .spec and .srpm files INFO: Downloading (Source0): https://gitlab.com/BuildGrid/buildbox/buildbox/-/archive/1.2.12/buildbox-1.2.12.tar.bz2 INFO: Running checks and generating report INFO: Results and/or logs in: /home/mcatanzaro/2302674-buildbox/results INFO: Reading configuration from /etc/mock/site-defaults.cfg INFO: Reading configuration from /etc/mock/chroot-aliases.cfg INFO: Reading configuration from /etc/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64.cfg INFO: Build completed INFO: Installing built package(s) INFO: Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:22 ago on Mon Aug 5 14:56:43 2024. At this point, it just stalls and does nothing. I'm not looking forward to doing a manual review, so next step is for me to report a bug.
Um, just kidding. It's just *really* slow. Looks like it spent 8 minutes doing nothing when running dnf: Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:22 ago on Mon Aug 5 14:56:43 2024. Last metadata expiration check: 0:07:47 ago on Mon Aug 5 14:56:43 2024. Package basesystem-11-21.fc41.noarch contains no files Package glibc-minimal-langpack-2.40-3.fc41.x86_64 contains no files Last metadata expiration check: 0:07:50 ago on Mon Aug 5 14:56:43 2024. Last metadata expiration check: 0:07:53 ago on Mon Aug 5 14:56:43 2024. INFO: ExclusiveArch dependency checking disabled, enable with EXARCH flag I'm not sure if that's a dnf bug or a fedora-review bug. Whatever. Moving on....
I think this is the simplest package review I've ever done, which is a good thing. Nice. You have not very much to do before I approve the package. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed - Some of the build dependencies provide pkg-config files. In these cases, using a pkg-config dependency is preferred over specifying the name of the package. E.g. you can "BuildRequires: pkgconfig(cares)" rather than "BuildRequires: c-ares-devel". This is not required, but good to do. - Please use "%autosetup -p1" (otherwise, anybody trying to add patches in the future will be sad) - Package depends on ninja-build but doesn't pass -GNinja to %cmake_build, so looks like it builds with make? Can the BuildRequires: ninja-build be dropped? - The rpmlint output from fedora-review is broken for unknown reasons, so I ran it manually. It only complains about missing man pages for the binaries. It would be good to have an upstream issue report to request man pages. (rpmlint hit an error when processing the debuginfo package, but I don't care because the odds of problems there are very low.) ===== 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]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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: I'm astounded, but "Apache-2.0" does seem to be the full and complete SPDX expression. licensecheck didn't find any different license. [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. It contains one header file mock_stream.h copied from grpc. A single header is not a bundled library. This is fine. [-]: 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]: 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]: 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. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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. mcatanzaro note: If the package contains tests, it would be good to run them in %check using the %ctest macro. But I guess it probably doesn't? [-]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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 ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://gitlab.com/BuildGrid/buildbox/buildbox/-/archive/1.2.12/buildbox-1.2.12.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e9e72f167187904a5511503a06d7b63d055f93276ea8a1feb51b9260e10e452a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e9e72f167187904a5511503a06d7b63d055f93276ea8a1feb51b9260e10e452a Requires -------- buildbox (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libabsl_synchronization.so.2401.0.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) libfuse3.so.3()(64bit) libfuse3.so.3(FUSE_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libglog.so.0()(64bit) libgpr.so.26()(64bit) libgrpc++.so.1.48()(64bit) libgrpc.so.26()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libprotobuf.so.30()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.11)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.15)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.2)(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) libuuid.so.1()(64bit) libuuid.so.1(UUID_1.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) buildbox-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): buildbox-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- buildbox: buildbox buildbox(x86-64) buildbox-debuginfo: buildbox-debuginfo buildbox-debuginfo(x86-64) debuginfo(build-id) buildbox-debugsource: buildbox-debugsource buildbox-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2302674 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: R, Haskell, PHP, fonts, Java, SugarActivity, Perl, Ocaml, Python Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Thanks for the review Michael For the report above, I think the only missing is: > [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. This should be enabled now (and all tests pass): - Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jjardon/buildbox/fedora-40-x86_64/07865537-buildbox/buildbox.spec - SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jjardon/buildbox/fedora-40-x86_64/07865537-buildbox/buildbox-1.2.12-1.fc40.src.rpm - Build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jjardon/buildbox/build/7865537/
Hey Michael, sorry I missed your comments in here: > - Some of the build dependencies provide pkg-config files. In these cases, using a pkg-config dependency is preferred over specifying the name of the package. E.g. you can "BuildRequires: pkgconfig(cares)" rather than "BuildRequires: c-ares-devel". This is not required, but good to do. I was actually wondering about this; it should be fixed now > - Please use "%autosetup -p1" (otherwise, anybody trying to add patches in the future will be sad) Done! > - Package depends on ninja-build but doesn't pass -GNinja to %cmake_build, so looks like it builds with make? Can the BuildRequires: ninja-build be dropped? I changed to explicitly build with ninja (I though that was default but seems that is not the case indeed: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/cmake/blob/rawhide/f/macros.cmake.in) > - The rpmlint output from fedora-review is broken for unknown reasons, so I ran it manually. It only complains about missing man pages for the binaries. It would be good to have an upstream issue report to request man pages. (rpmlint hit an error when processing the debuginfo package, but I don't care because the odds of problems there are very low.) Sure, will open an issue; all binaries seems to be well documented when you call them with --help though; is this really necessary or only a nice to have? Another round of builds: - Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jjardon/buildbox/fedora-40-x86_64/07874400-buildbox/buildbox.spec - SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jjardon/buildbox/fedora-40-x86_64/07874400-buildbox/buildbox-1.2.12-1.fc40.src.rpm - Build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jjardon/buildbox/build/7874400/
(In reply to Javier Jardón from comment #9) > Sure, will open an issue; all binaries seems to be well documented when you > call them with --help though; is this really necessary or only a nice to > have? It's optional. Missing man pages don't block new packages; it's just good to request them when they don't exist.
Hey Javier! I sponsored you: https://pagure.io/packager-sponsors/issue/675
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/buildbox
FEDORA-2024-4d71656be4 (buildbox-1.2.12-2.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-4d71656be4
FEDORA-2024-4d71656be4 (buildbox-1.2.12-2.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.