https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1747552
Bug ID: 1747552 Summary: Review Request: libdfp - Decimal Floating Point library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: tulioqm@br.ibm.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://pagure.io/libdfp/raw/master/f/libdfp.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/tuliom/libdfp/srpm-builds/01... Description: The "Decimal Floating Point C Library" is an implementation of ISO/IEC Technical report "ISO/IEC TR 24732" which describes the C-Language library routines necessary to provide the C library runtime support for decimal floating point data types introduced in IEEE 754-2008, namely _Decimal32, _Decimal64, and _Decimal128. Fedora Account System Username: tuliom
This is my first package, so I need a sponsor. Stefan Liebler (Fedora account stliibm) and me are maintainers of libdfp upstream and we'd like to co-maintain libdfp on Fedora. We would like to enable the build on ppc64le and s390x.
We have successful builds in Copr: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/tuliom/libdfp/build/1008957/
The current spec is based on the latest version available on Enterprise Linux 7. We updated the version, added support for make check and added more details.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1747552
Artur Iwicki fedora@svgames.pl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora@svgames.pl
--- Comment #1 from Artur Iwicki fedora@svgames.pl ---
Group: System Environment/Libraries BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) [...] Group: Development/Libraries
The Group and BuildRoot tags are not used in Fedora. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_tags_and_section...
%install rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [...] %clean rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
Don't remove the buildroot during %install. The %clean section is not needed. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_tags_and_section...
%install make install install_root=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
You can probably use %{make_install} here.
cd Build [...] cd ..
Maybe use pushd / popd instead?
You should also include the COPYING.txt file in %files (and mark it as %license).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1747552
--- Comment #2 from stli@linux.ibm.com --- I've adjusted the spec file according to your comments. But I can't use make_install as it would setup DESTDIR instead of install_root.
You'll find the current spec-file here: https://pagure.io/fork/stliibm/libdfp/blob/stli-20190904/f/libdfp.spec I've also created a pull-request: https://pagure.io/libdfp/pull-request/1
I've also performed some scratch builds for ppc64le and s390x on: -F30: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=37456479 -F31: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=37456559 -epel8: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=37456581
They are all green despite of epel8 on s390x where I've got test-fails: FAIL: test-cast-to-overflow FAIL: test-cast-to-underflow => These tests fails due to a missing patch in gcc (see https://github.com/libdfp/libdfp/issues/71#issuecomment-420614177). The patch was backported to gcc 8.3.
According to the logs for the epel8 build, gcc-8.2.1-3.5.el8.src.rpm was used. Will epel8 use a newer gcc-8.3.* as soon as such a newer version is available in RHEL 8?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1747552
Hanns-Joachim Uhl hannsj_uhl@de.ibm.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |bugproxy@us.ibm.com, | |dan@danny.cz Link ID| |IBM Linux Technology Center | |181451
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1747552
Hanns-Joachim Uhl hannsj_uhl@de.ibm.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1737946
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1747552
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com
--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- - Use %global, not %define:
%global cpu_variants power6
- Missing isa:
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
- It seems it should be:
%prep %autosetup -p1 -n %{name}-%{version}
- make %{?_smp_mflags} → %make_build
- make install install_root=%{buildroot} → %make_install
- Not needed: %defattr(-,root,root,-)
- Use %ldconfig_scriptlets instead of:
%post -p /sbin/ldconfig
%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig
- In order to avoid unintentional soname bumps, we forbid the globbing of the major soname version, be more specific instead:
%{_libdir}/*.so.*
- # Install COPYING.txt to _docdir. Patch3: libdfp-license.patch
Why? COPYING.txt should not go to _docdir but be installed to licensedir with:
%license COPYING.txt
The file will be copied to the right location by rpm.
Will epel8 use a newer gcc-8.3.* as soon as such a newer version is available in RHEL 8?
I have no idea how RHEL work, but EPEL8 will use it soon after it is available in RHEL.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1747552
--- Comment #4 from Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho tulioqm@br.ibm.com --- I've made all the changes requested in comment #3.
Spec URL: https://pagure.io/libdfp/raw/master/f/libdfp.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/tuliom/libdfp/fedora-30-ppc6...
Results of the tests are available at: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/tuliom/libdfp/build/1051118/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1747552
--- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- You haven't addressed the follozwing:
- Missing isa in %package devel
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
- It seems it should be:
%prep %autosetup -p1 -n %{name}-%{version}
- Not needed: %defattr(-,root,root,-) in %files devel
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1747552
--- Comment #6 from Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho tulioqm@br.ibm.com --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #5)
You haven't addressed the follozwing:
- Missing isa in %package devel
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
I can't find this line: $ git grep -En '^Requires:' libdfp.spec:41:Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
What am I missing?
- It seems it should be:
%prep %autosetup -p1 -n %{name}-%{version}
- Not needed: %defattr(-,root,root,-) in %files devel
Oops. Sorry. I fixed both issues now. I decided to drop -n completely because the current package from upstream conforms to the %{name}-%{version} as expected by RPM. Is that OK?
Spec URL: https://pagure.io/libdfp/raw/master/f/libdfp.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/tuliom/libdfp/fedora-31-ppc6...
Results of the tests are available at: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/tuliom/libdfp/build/1051662/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1747552
--- Comment #7 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- (In reply to Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho from comment #6)
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #5)
You haven't addressed the follozwing:
- Missing isa in %package devel
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
I can't find this line: $ git grep -En '^Requires:' libdfp.spec:41:Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
What am I missing?
Line 41 Add %{?_isa} after %{name}
- It seems it should be:
%prep %autosetup -p1 -n %{name}-%{version}
- Not needed: %defattr(-,root,root,-) in %files devel
Oops. Sorry. I fixed both issues now. I decided to drop -n completely because the current package from upstream conforms to the %{name}-%{version} as expected by RPM. Is that OK?
It's good.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1747552
--- Comment #8 from Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho tulioqm@br.ibm.com --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #7)
Line 41 Add %{?_isa} after %{name}
Oh! It's the opposite. Done. Thanks for your patience.
Spec URL: https://pagure.io/libdfp/raw/master/f/libdfp.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/tuliom/libdfp/fedora-31-ppc6...
Results of the tests are available at: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/tuliom/libdfp/build/1051723/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1747552
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #9 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- Package approved.
You still need a sponsor. You also need to first sign the CLA on https://admin.fedoraproject.org/accounts Also your Bugzilla email should be the same as your FAS account email.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group
and https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Ensur...
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1747552
Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho tuliom@ascii.art.br changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tuliom@ascii.art.br
--- Comment #10 from Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho tuliom@ascii.art.br --- I'm now in the packager group, but:
$ fedpkg request-repo libdfp 1747552 Could not execute request_repo: The Bugzilla bug's review was approved over 60 days ago
Robert, could you re-approve it, please?
I apologize...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1747552
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Flags|fedora-review+ |fedora-review?
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1747552
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #11 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- No worry, flag refreshed.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1747552
--- Comment #12 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libdfp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1747552
--- Comment #13 from IBM Bug Proxy bugproxy@us.ibm.com --- ------- Comment From tulioqm@br.ibm.com 2020-02-20 08:06 EDT------- The repository has been created and libdfp is now available on F32 (unreleased), rawhide, epel8 and epel8-playground. Both for ppc64le and s390x. I think we can close this request now. Thank you!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1747552
Hanns-Joachim Uhl hannsj_uhl@de.ibm.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed| |2020-08-10 14:39:24
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org