Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 445153
Review Request: libacpi - General purpose library for ACPI
Last modified: 2008-10-01 02:35:21 EDT
I need a sponsor. Spec URL: http://sven.lank.es/Fedora/SPECS/libacpi.spec SRPM URL: http://sven.lank.es/Fedora/SRPM/libacpi-0.2-4.fc9.src.rpm Description: libacpi is a general purpose shared library for programs gathering ACPI data on Linux. Features: Thermal zones support, Battery support, Fan support, AC support libacpi is a dependency for yacpi (review request: #445152) and few other acpi-reading tools. I intend to package at least http://www.vanheusden.com/acpitail/ in the future.
Please do not manually strip the debuginfo from the compiled binary files. Doing that breaks generation of the -debuginfo package. You should be consistent in using macros. /usr/share/doc and /usr/share/man should be replaced by %{_defaultdocdir} and %{_mandir}, respectively. Same goes for /usr/bin and /usr/include/. *.a files, _if_ they they have to be packaged should be placed in a separated libacpi-static rpm (see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-2302ec1e1f44202c9cc4bcce24cb711266557ad7).
> Please do not manually strip the debuginfo from the compiled binary files. Doing > that breaks generation of the -debuginfo package. This one confuses me a little - how is the file going to get stripped if I don't do it manually? I have removed the strip for now but now rpmlint (rightfully in my opinion) complains about unstripped binaries .. > You should be consistent in using macros. fixed > *.a files, _if_ they they have to be packaged should be placed in a separated libacpi-static I don't think a -static package is needed here. I have removed the .a-File. New SRPM: http://sven.lank.es/Fedora/SRPM/libacpi-0.2-5.fc9.src.rpm SPEC: http://sven.lank.es/Fedora/SPECS/libacpi.spec
rpmbuild will strip the binaries when needed.
Please fix CFLAGS = -fPIC -g --pedantic -Wall -Wextra first (you should make sure that the standard Fedora compile flags are used ) and then we'll see why we get libacpi.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/libacpi.so.0 libacpi-debuginfo.x86_64: E: empty-debuginfo-package
Seems that my conclusions wrt. stripping were quite a bit off ;) I have replaced the CFLAGS with $RPM_OPT_FLAGS - this didn't help with the unstripped .so-file. Grepping through a bunch of existing specfiles did help - if a library isn't executable, rpmlint won't strip it. I have added a chmod +x and now everything works as expected. New SRPM: http://sven.lank.es/Fedora/SRPM/libacpi-0.2-6.fc9.src.rpm SPEC: http://sven.lank.es/Fedora/SPECS/libacpi.spec
I am attaching a modified spec + patch which will preserve the timestamps of the files which are included (as opposed to generated) and also drops the .a directly at install time
Created attachment 304573 [details] modified spec; I was to lazy to add the mandatory changelog entry
Created attachment 304574 [details] modified Makefile patch. preserves timestamps at install time
I have incorporated your changes. I have contacted upstream - the author has added the time-preserving changes to his tree already - they will be in the next release (still some time away). Added a patch from debian (the debian maintainer is upstream) to use the sysfs interface for battery information instead of the (deprecated) proc-fs. New SRPM: http://sven.lank.es/Fedora/SRPM/libacpi-0.2-7.fc9.src.rpm SPEC: http://sven.lank.es/Fedora/SPECS/libacpi.spec
%dir %{_defaultdocdir}/libacpi is missing in %files list
I have added %dir-directives to libacpi and libacpi-devel rpms New SRPM: http://sven.lank.es/Fedora/SRPM/libacpi-0.2-8.fc9.src.rpm SPEC: http://sven.lank.es/Fedora/SPECS/libacpi.spec
Docs where installed into %{_defaultdocdir}/name instead of name-version This update fixes this: New SRPM: http://sven.lank.es/Fedora/SRPM/libacpi-0.2-9.fc9.src.rpm SPEC: http://sven.lank.es/Fedora/SPECS/libacpi.spec
Some minor tweaks to the specfile after some remarks in the yacpi review request: * Changed BuildRoot * replace some occurences of libacpi with %{name} New SRPM: http://sven.lank.es/Fedora/SRPM/libacpi-0.2-10.fc9.src.rpm SPEC: http://sven.lank.es/Fedora/SPECS/libacpi.spec
The newer version of rpm has become pickier, so you'll have to replace %patch -p1 with "%patch0 -p1". Otherwise mock bails out with an error. Also, you must either modify the second patch (recommended method !) or add %define _default_patch_fuzz 2 to the spec file, otherwise the patch does not apply with current koji/mock settings Everything else seems OK at the first glance. Please fix the above and I'll do a full review.
I also suggest changing "Note: This is no portable code, it will just run on a Linux system." to "Note: This is no portable code, it will run just on a Linux system." Given that the developer is not a native English speaker (neither am I, so I might be wrong here) I think my version express better what he wanted to say.
New SRPM: http://sven.lank.es/Fedora/SRPM/libacpi-0.2-11.fc10.src.rpm SPEC: http://sven.lank.es/Fedora/SPECS/libacpi.spec I changed 'just run' to 'only run' and redid the patch to apply without fuzz.
I have not forgotten about this. I am trying to identify if these libs work on PPC but for the moment I do not have the hardware at hand.
Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Tested on: devel/x86_64, devel/PPC [x] Rpmlint output: source RPM: empty binary RPM:empty [x] Package is not relocatable. [x] Buildroot is correct ( %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX)) [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. License type:MIT [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 %doc. [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. SHA1SUM of package: 4f2911cb0c737335003c2c13edef76821dee2cd1 /tmp/libacpi-0.2.tar.gz [!] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch See issue 1 [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [-] The spec file handles locales properly. [x] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x] Package must own all directories that it creates. [x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x] Permissions on files are set properly. [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. [x] Package consistently uses macros. [x] Package contains code, or permissable content. [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. [x] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la). [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. === SUGGESTED ITEMS === [x] Latest version is packaged. [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Tested on: devel/x86_64, devel/ppc [-] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Tested on: [!] Package functions as described. see issue 1 [x] Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct. [-] File based requires are sane. === Issues === 1. the package builds happily on PPC, but I had no chance yet to test if it actually works on that architecture I'll come back as soon as I can do the test
With the invaluable help of David Woodhouse who spared some cycles and his personal time it was proved that this application does not work on ppc because the code is "far too dependent on ACPI nonsense, and not using the proper generic interfaces to stuff." Therefore the spec file must exclude the ppc/ppc64 architecture. Sven, add the required bits and I'll approve the package.
Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Tested on: devel/x86_64, devel/PPC [x] Rpmlint output: source RPM: empty binary RPM:empty [x] Package is not relocatable. [x] Buildroot is correct ( %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX)) [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. License type:MIT [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 %doc. [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. SHA1SUM of package: 4f2911cb0c737335003c2c13edef76821dee2cd1 /tmp/libacpi-0.2.tar.gz [!] Package is known to not work on ppc/ppc64 See issue 1 [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [-] The spec file handles locales properly. [x] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x] Package must own all directories that it creates. [x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x] Permissions on files are set properly. [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. [x] Package consistently uses macros. [x] Package contains code, or permissable content. [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. [x] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la). [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. === SUGGESTED ITEMS === [x] Latest version is packaged. [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Tested on: devel/x86_64, devel/ppc [-] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Tested on: [!] Package functions as described. See isssue 1 [x] Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct. [-] File based requires are sane. === Issues === 1. See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=445153#c19 Short version: the code is dependent on x86 specific architecture and cannot be used on ppc Therefore the ppc architecture must be excluded Sven, add the required excludearch line in the spec and I'll approve the package. Wishful thinking: it would be nice of you could persuade the upstream author to rewrite the code in a more portable way. Or ar least tell him about the problems .
Sorry, please ignore comment #20, it was meant for bug 445152
One last suggestion: change "Note: This is no portable code, it will only run on a Linux system." to "Note: This is no portable code, it will only run on a Linux system with an x86 architecture."
ExcludeArch added New SRPM: http://sven.lank.es/Fedora/SRPM/libacpi-0.2-12.fc10.src.rpm SPEC: http://sven.lank.es/Fedora/SPECS/libacpi.spec
package APPROVED
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: libacpi Short Description: General purpose library for ACPI Owners: slankes Branches: F-9 InitialCC: Cvsextras Commits: yes
For the record, I really don't think we should be shipping this as a library in its current form. It's not generically useful -- it's ACPI-specific and broken. It should be using _generic_ interfaces -- such as /sys/class/power_supply for battery information, for example -- rather than the ACPI-specific ones which are going to be going away.
David, /sys/class/power_supply is used. See libacpi-0.2-sysfs.patch - while this all isn't perfect yet (and quite hackish) and I agree that having something based on e.g. devicekit/power would be much nicer it is something that works now and gets the job done. It will either improve or be replaced by something better over time.
cvs done.
Sven, I see that the package was built. Any reason to not close the bug ?
libacpi-0.2-12.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libacpi-0.2-12.fc9
libacpi-0.2-12.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update libacpi'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2008-8263
libacpi-0.2-12.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.