Spec URL: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/new/libffi.spec SRPM URL: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/new/libffi-2.1-0.1.20080129svn131943.fc9.src.rpm Description: Compilers for high level languages generate code that follows certain conventions. These conventions are necessary, in part, for separate compilation to work. One such convention is the "calling convention". The "calling convention" is a set of assumptions made by the compiler about where function arguments will be found on entry to a function. A "calling convention" also specifies where the return value for a function is found. Some programs may not know at the time of compilation what arguments are to be passed to a function. For instance, an interpreter may be told at run-time about the number and types of arguments used to call a given function. Libffi can be used in such programs to provide a bridge from the interpreter program to compiled code. The libffi library provides a portable, high level programming interface to various calling conventions. This allows a programmer to call any function specified by a call interface description at run-time. Ffi stands for Foreign Function Interface. A foreign function interface is the popular name for the interface that allows code written in one language to call code written in another language. The libffi library really only provides the lowest, machine dependent layer of a fully featured foreign function interface. A layer must exist above libffi that handles type conversions for values passed between the two languages.
Would you elaborate why you want to ship libffi as a separate package? libffi is part of GCC, is being built when bootstrapping GCC, technically closely tied to GCC ... That said, IMO, libffi should not be shipped separately.
Or, if it is shipped for systems to use, perhaps it should be built from GCC? Note that there is precedence for apps shipping their own libffi in the absence of a system one. See g-wrap.
GCC doesn't include a copy of libffi. See Bugzilla 190735 where Jakub explicitly says "I think libffi should be just packaged separately from gcc for third party package use. Either package it in Fedora Extras, or convince somebody to do so."
(In reply to comment #3) > GCC doesn't include a copy of libffi. The sources are part of GCC. C.f. your spec file were you explicitly lift them from there. > See Bugzilla 190735 where Jakub explicitly > says "I think libffi should be just packaged separately from gcc for third > party package use. "He thinks ... should" ... In other words, _He_ doesn't package it, because _He_ and upstream-GCC doesn't want to. (And there are good reasons not to do so.) > Either package it in Fedora Extras, or convince somebody to do so. Or do not package it at all. Trying to lift the code from GCC's source-tree and to package it separately to me is nothing bug silly. Sorry, I am sure you will not like this, but this had to be said.
One of my pending applications (gambas2) needs it. g-wrap needs it. That in and of itself says that there is a need for this library to be packaged system-wide, rather than buried in multiple copies of individual packages. The security concerns around that are enough reason to separate it. I would prefer to see this generated out of GCC, but barring that, I'll maintain it myself. It builds fine (and works fine) as a standalone library. Also, I think you're misinterpreting what Jakub said. He said that he believes that libffi should be packaged separately from gcc for other packages to use, which is precisely what I'm doing here. I'm adding Jakub to the CC on this bug, so that he can either confirm or deny this. :)
(In reply to comment #5) > Also, I think you're misinterpreting what Jakub said. He said that he believes > that libffi should be packaged separately from gcc for other packages to use, > which is precisely what I'm doing here. I'm adding Jakub to the CC on this bug, > so that he can either confirm or deny this. :) And I disagree with you both. I say: libffi's sources are part of GCC. i.e. if at all, it must be shipped as a subpackage of GCC.
Paging Anthony Green (upstream maintainer) to this bug.
libffi should be packaged separately from GCC, much like zlib is. (zlib is bundled with the GCC sources, just like libffi). I'm preparing a libffi 3.0 release right now, and would prefer that we ship this version instead if that's OK.
This works for me. Please note that the headers (at least in what was in SVN) aren't anywhere near multilib clean, and I conditionalized them with a dummy header in my package.
(In reply to comment #9) > This works for me. Please note that the headers (at least in what was in SVN) > aren't anywhere near multilib clean, and I conditionalized them with a dummy > header in my package. Yes, that's one of the things we're cleaning up for 3.0. It probably won't be ready for a couple of weeks at least.
(In reply to comment #8) > libffi should be packaged separately from GCC, much like zlib is. (zlib is > bundled with the GCC sources, just like libffi). Unlike zlib, the upstream for libffi is in GCC - Otherwise Spot would not have to lift the code from GCC's code base.
(In reply to comment #11) > Unlike zlib, the upstream for libffi is in GCC - Otherwise Spot would not have > to lift the code from GCC's code base. It's true that for the past 10 years virtually all development has happened within the GCC project. However, the FSF has always been clear that libffi is not part of GCC. It is just distributed along with GCC for convenience. GCC has never installed libffi as a user library. It is only used to enable libgcj. Given libffi's continued use outside of the GCC project, I recently decided to start making independent libffi releases again. See this thread: http://sourceware.org/ml/libffi-discuss/2008/msg00000.html
(In reply to comment #12) > (In reply to comment #11) > > Unlike zlib, the upstream for libffi is in GCC - Otherwise Spot would not have > > to lift the code from GCC's code base. > > It's true that for the past 10 years virtually all development has happened > within the GCC project. However, the FSF has always been clear that libffi is > not part of GCC. Can you provide any evidence for this statement? Being a GCC developer myself I have never heard about any such statement, I knew there had your libffi project before, .. it had been absorbed by GCC like many other comparable projects, causing its former upstream to die. > It is just distributed along with GCC for convenience. GCC > has never installed libffi as a user library. A fact which could easily be changed. > It is only used to enable libgcj. Check libffi's ChangeLog and you will probably noticed that I know about this. It's one reason why I think applications still using libffi outside of GCC probably had been based on your ancient libffi-1.2 or have lifted the code from GCC. > Given libffi's continued use outside of the GCC project, I recently decided to > start making independent libffi releases again. See this thread: > http://sourceware.org/ml/libffi-discuss/2008/msg00000.html Of cause it's your liberty to resume the work you abandoned many years ago and to launch a fork based on GCC's source. I wonder if GCC-SC knows about your decision and what they think about it.
(In reply to comment #13) > (In reply to comment #12) > > (In reply to comment #11) > > > Unlike zlib, the upstream for libffi is in GCC - Otherwise Spot would not have > > > to lift the code from GCC's code base. > > > > It's true that for the past 10 years virtually all development has happened > > within the GCC project. However, the FSF has always been clear that libffi is > > not part of GCC. > Can you provide any evidence for this statement? Not easily. Most of this discussion was in private email with rms and one or two of the SC members. My email from those days is lost in an unsalvageable Outlook folder. If you check with rms he will verify my claim. > I wonder if GCC-SC knows about your decision and what they think about it. I don't know, but it's certainly no secret. Do you really think anybody would have a problem with it? I've certainly been encouraged to release a new unbundled libffi release by GCC developers in the past. I agree, however, that we wouldn't be having this conversation if the GCC project installed libffi and supported the ffi.h interface for its users. AFAICT there are no plans to do this. Even if there were, it certainly won't happen in a timeframe that works for spot.
I have no problems with shipping it separately if it does have separate releases. Do we need to wait for the 3.0 release to actually have this in Fedora, though?
Is there a way we can get this into F9 (in rawhide before March 4)? We need this for the java-1.7.0-icedtea ppc/64 package. It now includes a zero-assembler implementation. Thx.
I agree with Anthony: libffi has never been part of gcc. I agree with Anthony: libffi is not a part of gcc, and never has been. We need a separate package because 1. We need to decouple the release cycle of libffi from that of gcc. Having to ask jakub to rebuild the whole gcc package for a small libffi change is a big nuisance. 2. jakub has made it plain that he doesn't want to build a libffi sub-package of gcc.
(In reply to comment #17) > I agree with Anthony: libffi has never been part of gcc. > > I agree with Anthony: libffi is not a part of gcc, and never has been. I think you should communicate these claims to the GCS and the FSF. > 1. We need to decouple the release cycle of libffi from that of gcc. > Having to ask jakub to rebuild the whole gcc package for a small > libffi change is a big nuisance. > > 2. jakub has made it plain that he doesn't want to build a libffi > sub-package of gcc. This is the point: Redhat has decided to fork. May I ask Jacub to split out libiberty?
Red Hat has not decided to fork. Red Hat is the original author of libffi, and its upstream is where it has always been. The only fork is in your head. You think I should tell the SC that libffi is not part of gcc. I have no intention of doing that, because they already know. libiberty is an FSF project; libffi is not.
Here's a test release for review... http://spindazzle.org/Fedora/libffi-2.99.2-1.fc8.src.rpm http://spindazzle.org/Fedora/libffi.spec
Is 2.99.2 going to be ABI compatible with 3.0?
(In reply to comment #21) > Is 2.99.2 going to be ABI compatible with 3.0? Yes.
Ok, we're getting close... http://spindazzle.org/Fedora/libffi-2.99.3-1.fc8.src.rpm http://spindazzle.org/Fedora/libffi.spec I think this is ready for somebody to review.
Should we wait until you have 3 out?
(In reply to comment #24) > Should we wait until you have 3 out? No. There won't be any substantial changes -- mostly more testing on other platforms and maybe cleaning up of the docs. The 2.99.* to 3.0 change should be seamless and I don't want to slow down the work depending on libffi in Fedora.
This fixes a pkgconfig bug... http://spindazzle.org/Fedora/libffi-2.99.4-1.fc8.src.rpm http://spindazzle.org/Fedora/libffi.spec spot: after installing this, I modified the g-wrap spec file like so... -export CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS -fPIC" +export CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS -fPIC `pkg-config libffi --cflags`" ...and it builds and installs fine with the system libffi package.
I will do the review now.
Thanks Lillian. FWIW, here's a new release with minor improvements... http://spindazzle.org/Fedora/libffi-2.99.8-1.fc8.src.rpm http://spindazzle.org/Fedora/libffi.spec
There are only a couple of issues I found. Please read the review below. With these problems assessed/fixed, the package is approved. Why are *.h files in /usr/lib/libffi-2.99.8/include and not /usr/include? ------- rpmlint: libffi-devel.i686: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib Verify this is ok. Packaging Guidelines 1. Naming ok 2. Legal 1. Licensing 2. Shareware 3. Patents 4. Emulators 5. Binary Firmware ok 3. No inclusion of pre-built binaries or libraries None. 4. Writing a package from scratch Done. 5. Modifying an existing package NA 6. Filesystem Layout 1. Libexecdir ok 7. Use rpmlint 1. Rpmlint Errors See above. 8. Changelogs correct. 9. Tags None. 10. BuildRoot tag 1. Prepping BuildRoot For %install Done. 11. Requires 1. PreReq 2. File Dependencies ok. 12. BuildRequires ok. 13. Summary and description Can you add more to the summary? 14. Encoding Fine. 15. Documentation ok. 16. Compiler flags ok. 17. Debuginfo packages ok. 18. Exclusion of Static Libraries .la's removed. good. 19. Duplication of system libraries none. 20. Beware of Rpath 21. Configuration files 22. Init Scripts 23. Desktop files 24. Macros ok 25. Handling Locale Files NA 26. Timestamps 27. Parallel make 28. Scriptlets requirements 29. Running scriptlets only in certain situations 30. Scriplets are only allowed to write in certain directories 31. Conditional dependencies none. 32. Build packages with separate user accounts 33. Relocatable packages 34. Code Vs Content 35. File and Directory Ownership ok. 36. Users and Groups 37. Web Applications 38. Conflicts none. 39. No External Kernel Modules - MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. - MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. - MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption on Package Naming Guidelines. - MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. - MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. - MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. - MUST: 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 must be included in %doc. - MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. - MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. If the reviewer is unable to read the spec file, it will be impossible to perform a review. Fedora is not the place for entries into the Obfuscated Code Contest (http://www.ioccc.org/). - MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. Done. - MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Works on i686. - MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires. Done. - MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. Done. - MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. - MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. Refer to the Guidelines for examples. - MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. - MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. - MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). - MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines. - MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. This is described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines. - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity) - MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. /usr/lib/libffi-2.99.4/include/ffi.h /usr/lib/libffi-2.99.4/include/ffitarget.h Why aren't these headers installed in /usr/include/ ? - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. - MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). Must add Requires: pkgconfig - MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. - MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} - MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec. done. - MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. This is described in detail in the desktop files section of Packaging Guidelines. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. - MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. - MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). See Prepping BuildRoot For %install for details. - MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. - SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. - SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. - SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. - SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. - SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. ok.
(In reply to comment #29) > Why are *.h files in /usr/lib/libffi-2.99.8/include and not /usr/include? Because they are platform dependent, hence not-multilib clean. The x86 headers are different from the x86-64 headers. People should use pkg-config to find the right headers. > libffi-devel.i686: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib > Verify this is ok. Yes, this is fine. It's just the .so symlink and the header files. > 13. Summary and description > Can you add more to the summary? Ok. > Must add Requires: pkgconfig Ok. Updated files here.... http://spindazzle.org/Fedora/libffi-2.99.9-1.fc8.src.rpm http://spindazzle.org/Fedora/libffi.spec Is this approved? Spot - if it's OK with you, I would like to (co)maintain this package in Fedora.
APPROVED.
ffi.h still could go into /usr/include, just ffitarget.h is target specific, right?
(In reply to comment #32) > ffi.h still could go into /usr/include, just ffitarget.h is target specific, right? No, unfortunately that's not how it works today. This could probably be changed (like in spot's wrapper headers), but I'm not sure it's worth the effort.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: libffi Short Description: A portable foreign function interface library Owners: green Branches: F-8 InitialCC: Cvsextras Commits: yes
FYI, it's better if the reviewer sets the fedora-review flag to + to approve a package so we can be sure who approved it, etc... No big deal since it's clear this was approved, but please do keep it in mind moving forward. Also, should spot be listed as co-maintainer? I guess he can add himself when he gets back... cvs done.
(In reply to comment #35) > Also, should spot be listed as co-maintainer? I guess he can add himself when he > gets back... I would have done this , but I wasn't sure what his FAS account name was. How would I find something like that out? > > cvs done. Thanks It's built for devel.
You can look for a maintainers FAS account name in: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/accounts/dump-group.cgi?group=cvsextras&format=plain (note that you do need to use your account/password to access this list).
This is required for OpenJDK in EPEL to be build for ppc. I'd be very thankful if you could maintain the EL-5 branch. In case you're not interested please let me know and I'll request and maintain the branch myself.
(In reply to comment #38) > This is required for OpenJDK in EPEL to be build for ppc. I'd be very thankful > if you could maintain the EL-5 branch. In case you're not interested please let > me know and I'll request and maintain the branch myself. Please go ahead and do that. Thanks! AG
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: libffi New Branches: EL-5 New branch owner: lkundrak New branch cvsextras commits: yes
cvs done.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: libffi New Branches: el6 Owners: dmlb2000
(In reply to comment #42) > Package Change Request > ====================== > Package Name: libffi > New Branches: el6 > Owners: dmlb2000 Oopse its already in el6... ignore please