https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914292
Bug ID: 1914292 Summary: Review Request: tkrzw - Fast key-value storage Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ti.eugene@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://tieugene.fedorapeople.org/rpms/tkrzw/tkrzw.spec SRPM URL: https://tieugene.fedorapeople.org/rpms/tkrzw/tkrzw-0.9.3-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: Tkrzw is a recommended successor of Kyoto Cabinet (that is successor of Tokyo Cabinet) Fedora Account System Username: tieugene
Koji builds: EPEL8: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=59193466 F32: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=59193805 F33: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=59193366 F34: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=59193163
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914292
code@musicinmybrain.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |code@musicinmybrain.net Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |code@musicinmybrain.net Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914292
code@musicinmybrain.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(ti.eugene@gmail.c | |om)
--- Comment #1 from code@musicinmybrain.net --- Thanks for submitting this. I have listed quite a few issues, but please don’t give up! They can all be fixed. Let me know if you are having trouble with any of them.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues: ======= [!]: License field is wrong. Use the standard abbreviations from
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#SoftwareLicenses. Apache License 2.0 should be abbreviated ASL 2.0. [!]: Shared libraries in %files should be listed without globs/wildcards, or with a more restrictive glob, to reduce the likelihood of missing an SONAME bump in an update. See
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_listing_shared_l.... [!]: Is there a reason for tkrzw-libs to provide tkrzw-lib? I suspect this is copied from the kyotocabinet spec file, where it may have been needed at one time, but in my opinion it is just unnecessary noise for a new package. If it was intentional and there is a concrete reason I am missing, please let me know. [!]: Build system injects “-O0” when you pass --enable-debug and/or --disable-opt to the configure script, which disables optimizations and certain hardening options. Even without these, the build system overrides compiler flags that it should not; see
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_compiler_flags.
My testing shows that you can fix this with tkrzw-0.9.3-do-not-override-build-flags.patch, to be attached. Per
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/PatchUpstreamStatu..., you would at least need a comment explaining that this patch is specific to Fedora. I’m not sure it’s suitable for offering upstream as-is, although it wouldn’t hurt to ask upstream for a way to build without any unnecessary compiler flag overrides.
(It shouldn’t have been necessary to still add -fPIC in this patch; -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1 should have taken care of it. I am not sure why. Nor am I sure why using -fPIE instead doesn’t work.)
[!]: You can build in parallel even better with “%make_build apidoc all” instead of “%make_build” followed by “make apidoc”. [!}: The HTML docs from doc/ should not be installed in two places; currently they are in both the -libs subpackage and the -devel subpackage. Plus, while they are only about half a MB, that is enough to significantly increase the size of each of those packages. I think they should be combined with the API docs in a single documentation subpackage. See the following issue. [!]: I don’t think the idiosyncratic -apidocs subpackage name from kyotocabinet should be maintained here. The guidelines imply that -doc is the proper name for a documentation subpackage
(https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_separate_documen...), and existing practice matches. There are only eight -apidocs packages in Fedora 33, compared to 128 -docs packages and 5259 -doc packages.
Personally, I would rename -apidocs to -doc, add “cp -rp doc html” and “mv api-doc api” at the end of %build, and then have “%doc html api” in the %files section for the -doc subpackage.
fedora-review said:
Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 6000640 bytes in 303 files. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_documentation [!]: Documentation subpackage should mark COPYING as %license, not %doc. [!}: The HTML docs from doc/ should not be installed in two places; currently they are in both the -libs subpackage and the -devel subpackage. Plus, while they are only about half a MB, that is enough to significantly increase the size of each of those packages.
Personally, I would tend to rename the -apidocs subpackage to -doc (there are only eight -apidocs packages in Fedora 33, compared to 128 -docs packages and 5259 -doc packages); add “cp -rp doc html” and do think it is strange to already have a documentation subpackage but then install some documentation elsewhere. [!]: You need to run the test suite in %check. The comment says “Koji err: "no enough memory". This is not a general out-of-memory error, but an attempt to lock too many pages with mlock. This is mentioned in the HTML documentation (search for mlock). The limit is controlled by root, so your only choice is probably to find the offending tests and patch them out.
My testing found that patching out only the four entries with “--buckets 100000 --lock_mem_buckets” in Makefile.in sufficed. The ones with “--buckets 10000” or less were fine. See tkrzw-0.9.3-skip-excessive-mlock-pages-tests.patch, to be attached. [!]: You should normally run tests with “%make_build check” instead of “make check” so they can run in parallel. However, in this case, that may cause unpredictable failures when multiple tests that use mlock run at the same time. You could still use “%make_build check -j1” to disable parallelization but benefit from any other default make options. [!]: You can pass --disable-static to the configure script; then you will not have to remove the .a file. [!]: Too-long description line reported by rpmlint. Please wrap “durability” onto the next line. [!]: Installed commands should contain man pages if possible. Upstream does not provide them, but help2man can generate reasonable output here. Something like:
for bin in \ tkrzw_build_util tkrzw_str_perf tkrzw_file_perf tkrzw_dbm_perf \ tkrzw_dbm_util do LD_LIBRARY_PATH=$PWD help2man --no-info --no-discard-stderr \ --version-string='%{version}' --output="${bin}.1" \ "./${bin}" done
in %build, and
install -d %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1 install -t %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1 -m 0644 -p *.1
in %install, plus a corresponding entry in the main package’s %files. Even better is to clean up the output by hand, if you are comfortable with the language.
You SHOULD (not MUST) suggest that upstream include them, and offering the help2man output as a starting point is a nice approach.
[x]: The %ldconfig_scriptlets macro is obsolete in Fedora, but acceptable since you are targeting EPEL8.
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "Apache License 2.0". 15 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/src/fedora/reviews/tkrzw/1914292-tkrzw/licensecheck.txt
Should be “ASL 2.0”
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
It is installed with the documentation subpackage, which is correct since that subpackage (correctly) does not require the main package, but you should mark it %license instead of %doc.
[!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
See the Issues section for details.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: 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. [!]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
These are also broken by the build system overriding compiler flags.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
(See Issues section)
[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]: 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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
Actually, you do use it, via %make_build, for the main build; this is catching “make apidoc” below. However, you could “%make_build apidoc all” to do everything in parallel (with apidoc first since Doxygen takes longer than most individual compiler invocations), which would be even better.
[-]: 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in tkrzw- libs , tkrzw-devel , tkrzw-apidocs
tkrzw and tkrzw-devel have correct fully-versioned dependencies on tkrzw-libs, and tkrzw-apidocs correctly has no such dependency
[x]: 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. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
Comment says “Koji err: "no enough memory". You should either fix this or patch out the offending test(s). See Issues section.
You should normally run tests with “%make_build check” instead of “make check” so they can run in parallel. However, in this case, that may cause unpredictable failures when multiple tests that use mlock run at the same time. You could still use “%make_build check -j1” to disable parallelization but benefit from any other default make options.
[x]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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: [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1116160 bytes in /usr/share
See the Issues section. This is the contents of doc/, installed in two different arched subpackages when it should really be part of the documentation subpackage.
[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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: tkrzw-0.9.3-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm tkrzw-libs-0.9.3-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm tkrzw-devel-0.9.3-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm tkrzw-apidocs-0.9.3-1.fc34.noarch.rpm tkrzw-debuginfo-0.9.3-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm tkrzw-debugsource-0.9.3-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm tkrzw-0.9.3-1.fc34.src.rpm tkrzw.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scalability -> availability, sociability, implacability tkrzw.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C It features high degrees of performance, concurrency, scalability and durability. tkrzw.x86_64: W: invalid-license APLv2.0 tkrzw.x86_64: W: no-documentation tkrzw.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tkrzw_build_util tkrzw.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tkrzw_dbm_perf tkrzw.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tkrzw_dbm_util tkrzw.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tkrzw_file_perf tkrzw.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tkrzw_str_perf tkrzw-libs.x86_64: W: invalid-license APLv2.0 tkrzw-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-license APLv2.0 tkrzw-apidocs.noarch: W: invalid-license APLv2.0 tkrzw-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license APLv2.0 tkrzw-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-license APLv2.0 tkrzw.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scalability -> availability, sociability, implacability tkrzw.src: E: description-line-too-long C It features high degrees of performance, concurrency, scalability and durability. tkrzw.src: W: invalid-license APLv2.0 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 15 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: tkrzw-libs-debuginfo-0.9.3-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm tkrzw-debuginfo-0.9.3-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm tkrzw-libs-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license APLv2.0 tkrzw-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license APLv2.0 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- tkrzw-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-license APLv2.0 tkrzw-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-license APLv2.0 tkrzw-apidocs.noarch: W: invalid-license APLv2.0 tkrzw-libs.x86_64: W: invalid-license APLv2.0 tkrzw-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license APLv2.0 tkrzw.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scalability -> availability, sociability, implacability tkrzw.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C It features high degrees of performance, concurrency, scalability and durability. tkrzw.x86_64: W: invalid-license APLv2.0 tkrzw.x86_64: W: no-documentation tkrzw.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tkrzw_build_util tkrzw.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tkrzw_dbm_perf tkrzw.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tkrzw_dbm_util tkrzw.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tkrzw_file_perf tkrzw.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tkrzw_str_perf tkrzw-libs-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license APLv2.0 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 14 warnings.
Source checksums ---------------- https://dbmx.net/tkrzw/pkg/tkrzw-0.9.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 945b978402425de6f4cb156544ddf34d928b28100ff93d931816eec3b51be9aa CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 945b978402425de6f4cb156544ddf34d928b28100ff93d931816eec3b51be9aa
Requires -------- tkrzw (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libtkrzw.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) tkrzw-libs(x86-64)
tkrzw-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(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) rtld(GNU_HASH)
tkrzw-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libtkrzw.so.0()(64bit) pkgconfig tkrzw-libs(x86-64)
tkrzw-apidocs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
tkrzw-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
tkrzw-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- tkrzw: tkrzw tkrzw(x86-64)
tkrzw-libs: libtkrzw.so.0()(64bit) tkrzw-lib tkrzw-lib(x86-64) tkrzw-libs tkrzw-libs(x86-64)
tkrzw-devel: pkgconfig(tkrzw) tkrzw-devel tkrzw-devel(x86-64)
tkrzw-apidocs: tkrzw-api-doc tkrzw-apidocs
tkrzw-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) tkrzw-debuginfo tkrzw-debuginfo(x86-64)
tkrzw-debugsource: tkrzw-debugsource tkrzw-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1914292 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, SugarActivity, Perl, R, fonts, Python, PHP, Haskell, Ocaml Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914292
--- Comment #2 from code@musicinmybrain.net --- Created attachment 1747887 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1747887&action=edit Candidate patch to stop overriding build flags
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914292
--- Comment #3 from code@musicinmybrain.net --- Created attachment 1747888 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1747888&action=edit Candidate patch to skip tests that mlock more memory than is allowed by default
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914292
Eugene A. Pivnev ti.eugene@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(ti.eugene@gmail.c | |om) |
--- Comment #4 from Eugene A. Pivnev ti.eugene@gmail.com --- SPEC: https://tieugene.fedorapeople.org/rpms/tkrzw/tkrzw.spec SRPM: https://tieugene.fedorapeople.org/rpms/tkrzw/tkrzw-0.9.3-2.fc33.src.rpm Koji builds: EL8: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=60018544 F32: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=60017967 F33: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=60017193 F34: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=60016356
Almost all suggestions above fixed. Exceptions: - -lib is usual for those who requires libs without tkrzw CLI utils (e.g. future python-tkrzw) - --disable-static not helps with *.a (BTW it is disabled by default) - skip-test patch above not improved because all of file-based DB tests not pass on each of archs. So all those tests is disabled now.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914292
code@musicinmybrain.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(ti.eugene@gmail.c | |om)
--- Comment #5 from code@musicinmybrain.net --- Thanks.
- -lib is usual for those who requires libs without tkrzw CLI utils (e.g. future python-tkrzw)
I agree with the existence of the -libs subpackage. Calling it -lib would have been fine, too, but -libs is a more popular choice. I am just not sure what the purpose of
Provides: %{name}-lib = %{version}-%{release} Provides: %{name}-lib%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
is. Why offer “-lib” with a virtual Provides? Can’t you just expect packages like python-tkrzw to depend on tkrzw-libs?
If you really like providing both -libs and -lib, I guess there is no prohibition against it, so you are welcome to do so. It just seems unnecessary.
--disable-static not helps with *.a (BTW it is disabled by default)
You are right; I was mistaken on this point.
skip-test patch above not improved because all of file-based DB tests not pass on each of archs. So all those tests is disabled now.
It doesn’t make sense to package a database library that is corrupting data in its test suite. Fortunately, I was able to make some progress on figuring out why this is happening.
It looks like this must be an upstream bug (not necessarily a known one) that becomes apparent when LTO (link-time optimization) is enabled. Adding “%global _lto_cflags %{nil}” somewhere in the spec file to opt out of LTO seems to fix it. (From a packaging guidelines perspective, turning off LTO to fix a bug is perfectly fine.)
That is probably worth reporting upstream, although it may be difficult for them to find the root cause. Often, this is happens when the program relies on undefined C or C++ behavior, but “gets away with it” until the compiler can consider multiple translation units.
Here is a Koji build where I have taken your most recent spec file, rolled back to the original tests patch, and disabled LTO.
I also did the following:
- Changed “%doc doc/* api-doc/*” to “%doc doc api-doc”, to avoid intermixing two directories full of HTML, instead creating a subdirectory of the package documentation directory for each set of documentation - Changed “%license” to “%license COPYING” in the %files section for the -doc subpackage - Per https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_manpages, changed man page wildcards from %{_mandir}/man1/%{name}_*.1.* to %{_mandir}/man1/%{name}_*.1*
(There could be a couple of other minor details remaining. I did not do a full re-review—but it looks good at a glance.)
F34: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=60045371
This is much closer! The tests pass on every architecture except i686.
The nature if the i686 failure is concerning: “BROKEN_DATA_ERROR: invalid record magic number”. That implies data corruption, so I think it will be necessary to “ExcludeArch: %ix86” and file a bug blocking https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=F-ExcludeArch-x86, unless we can find a solution with a little more investigation. I would say that a database that corrupts data in its test suite on a platform “does not work” on that platform. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_architecture_bui... for the policy on how to deal with this.
The NEEDINFO is to solicit your comments on the above, and check if you have any ideas on the i686 failure. I will try to spend a little time looking at it as well. If we conclude there is no fix to be easily found, we can add the ExcludeArch and I will complete the re-review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914292
--- Comment #6 from code@musicinmybrain.net --- By the way, while testing the LTO change, I found that there are occasional (less than 20% of builds or so) failures on architectures that normally succeed. They look like:
make[1]: *** [Makefile:244: check-treedbm-perf] Aborted (core dumped) make: *** [Makefile:124: check] Error 2
I have seen this on armv7hl and ppc64le so far.
I don’t think this merits an ExcludeArch or anything, and I’m not sure it is reproducible enough, or there is enough detail, to report it upstream. However, it is something to be aware of and keep an eye on. You might have random failures in a mass rebuild.
See https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=60044112 for an example where armv7hl failed.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914292
--- Comment #7 from code@musicinmybrain.net --- One more thing, in case it is helpful: the i686 issue does reproduce in a local fedora-34-i386 mock build on an x86_64 system, which makes it faster to test vs. needing a koji scratch build every time.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914292
--- Comment #8 from code@musicinmybrain.net --- “%doc example” might be a good addition to the -doc subpackage.
I don’t see any obvious cause for the i686 issue. Unless you see something I don’t, I think ExcludeArch will be needed. This would be a good thing to report upstream (not required for package approval). I can reproduce it in an i386 chroot with just “./configure && make && make check”, without any patches or extra build flags, so it is not specific to Fedora packaging.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914292
Eugene A. Pivnev ti.eugene@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(ti.eugene@gmail.c | |om) |
--- Comment #9 from Eugene A. Pivnev ti.eugene@gmail.com --- (In reply to code from comment #8)
“%doc example” might be a good addition to the -doc subpackage.
So, as previous (-2) build was _pre_ release (something like "help request") now _all_ of suggests above resolved (IMHO): SPEC: https://tieugene.fedorapeople.org/rpms/tkrzw/tkrzw.spec SRPM: https://tieugene.fedorapeople.org/rpms/tkrzw/tkrzw-0.9.3-3.fc33.src.rpm EL8: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=60060608 F32: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=60062841 F33: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=60066481 F34: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=60066818
All of significant bugreports (exceptions LTO) are in product's bugtracker (https://github.com/estraier/tkrzw/issues).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914292
--- Comment #10 from code@musicinmybrain.net --- I’m hoping to examine your latest version sometime today (New York timezone). Thanks for working through all of these details.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914292
code@musicinmybrain.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(ti.eugene@gmail.c | |om)
--- Comment #11 from code@musicinmybrain.net --- Almost there! So close! I’m glad you’ve been willing to do the work to get this package compliant with the Guidelines. It will be a good addition to Fedora.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== Issues =====
[!]: The “Requires: pkgconfig” in the -devel subpackage is not needed. The appropriate dependency to provide %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/ is added automatically when you install a .pc file there. This fact is not documented in the Guidelines; I learned it in a review of one of my own packages.
[!]: According to
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_architecture_bui..., you must place a full description of the i686 build failure above the ExcludeArch in a comment, with all the detail that you would put in a bug report. As soon as the package is approved, you must file a bug blocking https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=F-ExcludeArch-x86, at which point you can replace this description comment with a comment that simply links to the bug.
It would be best to file an upstream bug as well, since this issue does not appear to be Fedora-specific.
[!]: Rpmlint found mixed spaces and tabs in the spec file.
You can convert all tabs to spaces with “sed -i -r 's/\t/ /' tkrzw.spec” or, in vim, “:set et” followed by “:retab”. Or if you prefer all tabs, that is fine too.
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
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: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "Apache License 2.0". 15 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/src/fedora/reviews/tkrzw/1914292-tkrzw/re- review/1914292-tkrzw/licensecheck.txt [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. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: 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. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
Unnecessary Requires on pkgconfig from -devel; this is automatically added when a .pc file is installed in the usual location.
[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. [-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
Known ExcludeArch on 32-bit x86. Must follow
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_architecture_bui....
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
(except as otherwise noted)
[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]: 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in tkrzw- libs , tkrzw-devel [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures.
Known ExcludeArch on 32-bit x86. Must follow
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_architecture_bui....
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
Skipped tests are justified.
[x]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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: No rpmlint messages. [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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: tkrzw-0.9.3-3.fc34.x86_64.rpm tkrzw-libs-0.9.3-3.fc34.x86_64.rpm tkrzw-devel-0.9.3-3.fc34.x86_64.rpm tkrzw-doc-0.9.3-3.fc34.noarch.rpm tkrzw-debuginfo-0.9.3-3.fc34.x86_64.rpm tkrzw-debugsource-0.9.3-3.fc34.x86_64.rpm tkrzw-0.9.3-3.fc34.src.rpm tkrzw.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scalability -> availability, sociability, implacability tkrzw-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation tkrzw-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation tkrzw.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scalability -> availability, sociability, implacability tkrzw.src:64: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 64, tab: line 3) 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: tkrzw-libs-debuginfo-0.9.3-3.fc34.x86_64.rpm tkrzw-debuginfo-0.9.3-3.fc34.x86_64.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- tkrzw.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scalability -> availability, sociability, implacability tkrzw-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation tkrzw-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Source checksums ---------------- https://dbmx.net/tkrzw/pkg/tkrzw-0.9.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 945b978402425de6f4cb156544ddf34d928b28100ff93d931816eec3b51be9aa CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 945b978402425de6f4cb156544ddf34d928b28100ff93d931816eec3b51be9aa
Requires -------- tkrzw (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libtkrzw.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) tkrzw-libs(x86-64)
tkrzw-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(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) rtld(GNU_HASH)
tkrzw-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libtkrzw.so.0()(64bit) pkgconfig tkrzw-libs(x86-64)
tkrzw-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
tkrzw-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
tkrzw-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- tkrzw: tkrzw tkrzw(x86-64)
tkrzw-libs: libtkrzw.so.0()(64bit) tkrzw-libs tkrzw-libs(x86-64)
tkrzw-devel: pkgconfig(tkrzw) tkrzw-devel tkrzw-devel(x86-64)
tkrzw-doc: tkrzw-doc
tkrzw-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) tkrzw-debuginfo tkrzw-debuginfo(x86-64)
tkrzw-debugsource: tkrzw-debugsource tkrzw-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1914292 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: fonts, SugarActivity, Java, R, PHP, Perl, Haskell, Ocaml, Python Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914292
Eugene A. Pivnev ti.eugene@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(ti.eugene@gmail.c | |om) |
--- Comment #12 from Eugene A. Pivnev ti.eugene@gmail.com --- (In reply to code from comment #11)
It will be a good addition to Fedora.
tkrzw-0.9.3-4 "Perfect Edition":
SPEC: https://tieugene.fedorapeople.org/rpms/tkrzw/tkrzw.spec SRPM: https://tieugene.fedorapeople.org/rpms/tkrzw/tkrzw-0.9.3-4.fc33.src.rpm
Koji builds: EL8: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=60160685 F32: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=60160699 F33: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=60152489 F34: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=60160727
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914292
code@musicinmybrain.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #13 from code@musicinmybrain.net --- “Perfect Edition” indeed. Thanks for all your work. Approved.
Once your dist-git repository is created, please remember to file a bug against your package in Red Hat Bugzilla, blocking https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=F-ExcludeArch-x86, as required by the guidelines for using ExcludeArch.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
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: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "Apache License 2.0". 15 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/src/fedora/reviews/tkrzw/1914292-tkrzw/re-re- review/1914292-tkrzw/licensecheck.txt [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. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: 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. [-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. Note: Test run failed
ExcludeArch required, and correctly specified. Must file RHBZ bug once package is approved.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 92160 bytes in 23 files. [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: No rpmlint messages. [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]: 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]: 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in tkrzw- libs , tkrzw-devel
(Manually examined and correct)
[x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures.
Known arch bug filed upstream and properly handled with ExcludeArch. Must file RHBZ bug once package is approved.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: tkrzw-0.9.3-4.fc34.x86_64.rpm tkrzw-libs-0.9.3-4.fc34.x86_64.rpm tkrzw-devel-0.9.3-4.fc34.x86_64.rpm tkrzw-doc-0.9.3-4.fc34.noarch.rpm tkrzw-debuginfo-0.9.3-4.fc34.x86_64.rpm tkrzw-debugsource-0.9.3-4.fc34.x86_64.rpm tkrzw-0.9.3-4.fc34.src.rpm 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: tkrzw-libs-debuginfo-0.9.3-4.fc34.x86_64.rpm tkrzw-debuginfo-0.9.3-4.fc34.x86_64.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Source checksums ---------------- https://dbmx.net/tkrzw/pkg/tkrzw-0.9.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 945b978402425de6f4cb156544ddf34d928b28100ff93d931816eec3b51be9aa CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 945b978402425de6f4cb156544ddf34d928b28100ff93d931816eec3b51be9aa
Requires -------- tkrzw (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libtkrzw.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) tkrzw-libs(x86-64)
tkrzw-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(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) rtld(GNU_HASH)
tkrzw-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libtkrzw.so.0()(64bit) tkrzw-libs(x86-64)
tkrzw-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
tkrzw-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
tkrzw-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- tkrzw: tkrzw tkrzw(x86-64)
tkrzw-libs: libtkrzw.so.0()(64bit) tkrzw-libs tkrzw-libs(x86-64)
tkrzw-devel: pkgconfig(tkrzw) tkrzw-devel tkrzw-devel(x86-64)
tkrzw-doc: tkrzw-doc
tkrzw-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) tkrzw-debuginfo tkrzw-debuginfo(x86-64)
tkrzw-debugsource: tkrzw-debugsource tkrzw-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -D EXARCH -b 1914292 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: Ocaml, fonts, R, Python, Haskell, Java, SugarActivity, PHP, Perl Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914292
--- Comment #14 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/tkrzw
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914292
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-d4545e33b7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-d4545e33b7
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914292
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-d4545e33b7 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-d4545e33b7` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-d4545e33b7
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914292
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2021-02-04 02:16:45
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-d4545e33b7 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com