Spec URL: https://github.com/pbiering/signal-cli-rpm/blob/main/signal-cli.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/pbiering/InternetServerExtensions/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09161838-signal-cli/signal-cli-0.13.16-2.fc43.src.rpm Description: signal-cli commandline, dbus and JSON-RPC interface for the Signal messenger Fedora Account System Username: pbiering See also https://github.com/pbiering/signal-cli-rpm https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/request-package-signal-cli/155785/3
Hello, I do realize that this is possibly an old ticket. I am sorry that it hasn't been reviewed yet. Let me trigger the Fedora Review Service to see if the package builds successfully. Hopefully, a green check mark will attract some reviewer. If I am resurrecting an old ticket that you are not interested in anymore, my apologies, feel free to close it. [fedora-review-service-build]
There seems to be some problem with the following file. SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/pbiering/InternetServerExtensions/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09161838-signal-cli/signal-cli-0.13.16-2.fc43.src.rpm Fetching it results in a 404 Not Found error. Please make sure the URL is correct and publicly available. --- 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.
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/pbiering/InternetServerExtensions/package/signal-cli/ https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/pbiering/InternetServerExtensions/build/9800397/ Latest SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/pbiering/InternetServerExtensions/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09800397-signal-cli/signal-cli-0.13.22-1.fc44.src.rpm
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9820247 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2373115-signal-cli/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09820247-signal-cli/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - Not a valid SPDX expression 'GPLv3'. It seems that you are using the old Fedora license abbreviations. Try `license-fedora2spdx' for converting it to SPDX. Read more: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 - No javadoc subpackage present. Note: Javadocs are optional for Fedora versions >= 21 Read more: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation - No javadoc subpackage present Read more: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation 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.
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/pbiering/InternetServerExtensions/build/9820361/ https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/pbiering/InternetServerExtensions/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09820361-signal-cli/signal-cli-0.13.22-2.fc44.src.rpm license string adjusted
Created attachment 2115448 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9820247 to 9820382
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9820382 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2373115-signal-cli/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09820382-signal-cli/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - No javadoc subpackage present. Note: Javadocs are optional for Fedora versions >= 21 Read more: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation - No javadoc subpackage present Read more: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation 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.
fixed some issues in the new build https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/pbiering/InternetServerExtensions/build/9825118/ https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/pbiering/InternetServerExtensions/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09825118-signal-cli/signal-cli-0.13.22-3.fc44.src.rpm But unsure whether all can be fixed. Note also that precompiled Java application is taken as source from github release and not compiled itself at the moment from real source There is a statement in https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/request-package-signal-cli/155785/3 that complete compilation from original source is mandatory... ...if true, the spec file need major extension to build all from real source.
Created attachment 2115624 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9820382 to 9826888
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9826888 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2373115-signal-cli/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09826888-signal-cli/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - No javadoc subpackage present. Note: Javadocs are optional for Fedora versions >= 21 Read more: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation - No javadoc subpackage present Read more: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation 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.
Hi, This package seems to have been left all alone, so let us have a look. Java 21 is an older release and not in Rawhide or 44. You will need to target 25 or greater. Regards Phil
(In reply to Phil Wyett from comment #11) > Hi, > > This package seems to have been left all alone, so let us have a look. > > Java 21 is an older release and not in Rawhide or 44. You will need to > target 25 or greater. For 0.13.24 Java 25 was already selected for F44. For 0.14.0 now also for F42+ and EL9+ EL8 support is no longer possible at the moment as the precompiled release package requires Java 25 :-( See also: https://github.com/AsamK/signal-cli/issues/1951
(In reply to Peter Bieringer from comment #12) > (In reply to Phil Wyett from comment #11) > > Hi, > > > > This package seems to have been left all alone, so let us have a look. > > > > Java 21 is an older release and not in Rawhide or 44. You will need to > > target 25 or greater. > > For 0.13.24 Java 25 was already selected for F44. > For 0.14.0 now also for F42+ and EL9+ > > EL8 support is no longer possible at the moment as the precompiled release > package requires Java 25 :-( > See also: https://github.com/AsamK/signal-cli/issues/1951 Hi, None of the versions referenced have been offered here are source rpm, so cannot test. Regards Phil
Latest source RPM can be found here: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/pbiering/InternetServerExtensions/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10184800-signal-cli/signal-cli-0.14.0-1.fc45.src.rpm
Created attachment 2131817 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9826888 to 10185512
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10185512 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2373115-signal-cli/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10185512-signal-cli/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - No javadoc subpackage present. Note: Javadocs are optional for Fedora versions >= 21 Read more: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation - No javadoc subpackage present Read more: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation 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.
Hi, * Builds are good. * Line 37 - %global basedir /usr/lib/%{pname} Should we not be doing '%global basedir %{_libdir}/%{pname}'? * The below appears twice in 'spec' file. Is it needed? # SELinux # (currently no policy) * No license files are installed? I will do install tests later today or when next upload drops. Regards Phil
Here a new copr build (only for rawhide) considering the recommendations https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/pbiering/InternetServerExtensions/build/10188333/ > - No javadoc subpackage present The tar.gz with the precompiled jar/script/man files is not containing any documentation beside the man pages > No license files are installed? The tar.gz with the precompiled jar/script/man files is not containing any license file
Hi, * Builds good except for i386. Failure: Repositories loaded. Failed to resolve the transaction: Package "curl-8.18.0-4.fc44.i686" is already installed. No match for argument: java-25-openjdk-headless You can try to add to command line: --skip-unavailable to skip unavailable packages * libsignal_jni_so0874_ubuntu1804_amd64 https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/what-can-be-packaged/#prebuilt-binaries-or-libraries Can you go into the above? Regards Phil
i386 build - looks like need to be excluded bundled binary library is indeed an issue, looks like either an additional RPM is required or included in the same Source is here: https://github.com/signalapp/libsignal Option #1: build libsignal inside same RPM and inject into Java package. Option #2: dedicated RPM
libsignal is compiled with rust, this can end up into an ugly dependency hell if not all dependencies are provided by Fedora so far.
(In reply to Peter Bieringer from comment #21) > libsignal is compiled with rust, this can end up into an ugly dependency > hell if not all dependencies are provided by Fedora so far. Hi, * I would certainly exclude i386 and s390x builds for this package and libsignal. * Here is where we do not reinvent the wheel and take from Free/OSS. :-) Follow link below. https://software.opensuse.org/download/package?package=libsignal&project=network%3Aim%3Asignal Click on 'Fedora' link. Click on 'Grab binary packages directly'. You now borrow the newest 'libsignal' srpm and use it as a appropriately credited template for your 'libsignal' package. The bare downloaded srpm builds local here using mock and the rawhide config. The bare downloaded srpm builds on COPR: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/kathenas/generic-fedora-rawhide-all-with-review-not-production/build/10199212/ Regards Phil
Thank you for pointing to the libsignal RPM - unfortunatly rebuild with 0.87.4 is not working error: failed to select a version for the requirement `cmake = "^0.1.54"` (locked to 0.1.57) candidate versions found which didn't match: 0.1.48 location searched: directory source `/home/makerpm/rpmbuild/BUILD/libsignal-0.87.4-build/libsignal-0.87.4/vendor` (which is replacing registry `crates-io`) required by package `boring-sys v5.0.2 (https://github.com/signalapp/boring?tag=signal-v5.0.2#2c157897)` ... which satisfies dependency `boring-sys = "^5.0"` (locked to 5.0.2) of package `libsignal-core v0.1.0 (/home/makerpm/rpmbuild/BUILD/libsignal-0.87.4-build/libsignal-0.87.4/rust/core)` ... which satisfies path dependency `libsignal-core` (locked to 0.1.0) of package `signal-crypto v0.1.0 (/home/makerpm/rpmbuild/BUILD/libsignal-0.87.4-build/libsignal-0.87.4/rust/crypto)` perhaps a crate was updated and forgotten to be re-vendored? If there is no quick fix to get this solved I step out here and revoke the package request or hand it over to one which is more familiar resolving Rust issues.
(In reply to Peter Bieringer from comment #23) > Thank you for pointing to the libsignal RPM - unfortunatly rebuild with > 0.87.4 is not working > > error: failed to select a version for the requirement `cmake = "^0.1.54"` > (locked to 0.1.57) > candidate versions found which didn't match: 0.1.48 > location searched: directory source > `/home/makerpm/rpmbuild/BUILD/libsignal-0.87.4-build/libsignal-0.87.4/ > vendor` (which is replacing registry `crates-io`) > required by package `boring-sys v5.0.2 > (https://github.com/signalapp/boring?tag=signal-v5.0.2#2c157897)` > ... which satisfies dependency `boring-sys = "^5.0"` (locked to 5.0.2) > of package `libsignal-core v0.1.0 > (/home/makerpm/rpmbuild/BUILD/libsignal-0.87.4-build/libsignal-0.87.4/rust/ > core)` > ... which satisfies path dependency `libsignal-core` (locked to 0.1.0) > of package `signal-crypto v0.1.0 > (/home/makerpm/rpmbuild/BUILD/libsignal-0.87.4-build/libsignal-0.87.4/rust/ > crypto)` > perhaps a crate was updated and forgotten to be re-vendored? > > If there is no quick fix to get this solved I step out here and revoke the > package request or hand it over to one which is more familiar resolving Rust > issues. Hi, Let me have a look at this over the next couple of days and I will see what we can do. Regards Phil
> Let me have a look at this over the next couple of days and I will see what > we can do. That would be great, but having e.g. "libsignal" as dedicated binary RPM finally usable covers only 50%... I've tried now building "signal-cli" from source but found the next potential blocker. The build section mentioned script a bundled "gradlew", but this starts download of "gradle" itself and also a lot of modules and even the binary module "libsignal_jni" and then compile it. What now? Looks for me that a standalone offline build is not really possible without deep knowledge how to deal with that situation.
Hi, Packaging libsignal for your needs is going to take time, not something I have sadly. If you move forward with this, do not hesitate to ask questions on the relevant mailing lists/irc channels etc. Regards Phil