https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2317848
Bug ID: 2317848 Summary: Review Request: muon - C implementation of meson Product: Fedora Version: rawhide OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: benson_muite@emailplus.org QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/muon/fedora-rawhid... srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/muon/fedora-rawhid...
description: An implementation of the meson build system in c99 with minimal dependencies.
fas: fed500
Comments: a) Checking with upstream about a few test failures b) The name muon has been used for an orphaned but different package: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/muon c) Still need to add a license breakdown
Reproducible: Always
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2317848
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://muon.build
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8126425 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Found issues:
- A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/muon Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicti...
Please know that there can be false-positives.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2317848
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #2 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Other distributions use the name meson-muon
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/muon-meson https://repology.org/project/muon-meson/packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2317848
Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |lemenkov@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review? Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |lemenkov@gmail.com
--- Comment #3 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com --- I'll review it
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2317848
--- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com --- (In reply to Benson Muite from comment #2)
Other distributions use the name meson-muon
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/muon-meson https://repology.org/project/muon-meson/packages
Honestly looks like a majority of Linux distros (especially counting their user base) are using muon-meson name. I would rename this package accordingly.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2317848
--- Comment #5 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com --- Rpmlint insists that licensing breakdown must be provided. Honestly I don't see it as a blocker but looks like
* forked samurai, tinyjson, and memmem.c are licensed under MIT * sha_256 is under Unlicense * the rest of source code is under GPLv3
Here is my formal
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/muon See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names
^^^ Another one reason for renaming. Even if the package was retired I believe it's better to avoid confusion.
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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 (Apache-2.0 AND GPL-3.0-only AND MIT AND Unlicense). [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [ ]: 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: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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 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. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: 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]: 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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: muon-0.3.1-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm muon-0.3.1-1.fc42.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpy8t4b_zn')] checks: 32, packages: 2
muon.spec:43: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 43) muon.spec:39: W: macro-in-comment %{_vpath_builddir} muon.spec:39: W: macro-in-comment %{_vpath_builddir} 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: muon-debuginfo-0.3.1-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp3e4n8883')] checks: 32, packages: 1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 2
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 9 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://git.sr.ht/~lattis/meson-tests/archive/1e565931.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f45d46dc751a19aa1dc4b2ff7b23bfd87468d8f11e162a7d217d927b9e49ce96 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f45d46dc751a19aa1dc4b2ff7b23bfd87468d8f11e162a7d217d927b9e49ce96 https://git.sr.ht/~lattis/muon/archive/0.3.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 14b175b29c4390a69c1d9b5758b4689f0456c749822476af67511f007be2e503 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 14b175b29c4390a69c1d9b5758b4689f0456c749822476af67511f007be2e503
Requires -------- muon (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libarchive.so.13()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcurl.so.4()(64bit) libpkgconf.so.5()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides -------- muon: muon muon(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2317848 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Python, Haskell, SugarActivity, R, Ocaml, PHP, fonts, Perl, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2317848
--- Comment #6 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com --- Oops, sorry pressed enter too fast. Please disregard my previous comment.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2317848
--- Comment #7 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com --- 1. Rpmlint insists that licensing breakdown must be provided. Honestly I don't see it as a blocker but looks like
* forked samurai, tinyjson, and memmem.c are licensed under MIT * sha_256 is under Unlicense * the rest of source code is under GPLv3 * tests artifacts are either under ASL 2.0 or not specified
2. Also please find out why these two tests are failing. I'd have a meson drop-in replacement which passes all the tests.\
3. Adjust whitespaces/tabs. Remove double whitespaces. A cosmetic issue, not a big deal.
Apart from that I don't see any other issues so here is my formal
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/muon See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names
^^^ Another one reason for renaming. Even if the package was retired I believe it's better to avoid confusion.
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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 (Apache-2.0 AND GPL-3.0-only AND MIT AND Unlicense). [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. Please add it. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. It has some forked ones but we don't have them packaged. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package does not contain desktop file (not a GUI application). [-]: No extra development files. [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. See my note about naming in comment #4. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: The package is not a rename of another package. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: The package does not contain systemd file(s). [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [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: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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 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). [?]: I did not test if the package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged (0.3.1). [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources weren't verified with gpgverify in %prep (upstream does not publish signatures). [?]: I did not test if the package compiles and builds into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %check is present but not all tests pass. See comment in the spec-file. [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]: 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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: muon-0.3.1-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm muon-0.3.1-1.fc42.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpy8t4b_zn')] checks: 32, packages: 2
muon.spec:43: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 43) muon.spec:39: W: macro-in-comment %{_vpath_builddir} muon.spec:39: W: macro-in-comment %{_vpath_builddir} 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s
^^^ I guess macro-in-comment will go away when %check section will be fixed.
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: muon-debuginfo-0.3.1-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp3e4n8883')] checks: 32, packages: 1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 2
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 9 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://git.sr.ht/~lattis/meson-tests/archive/1e565931.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f45d46dc751a19aa1dc4b2ff7b23bfd87468d8f11e162a7d217d927b9e49ce96 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f45d46dc751a19aa1dc4b2ff7b23bfd87468d8f11e162a7d217d927b9e49ce96 https://git.sr.ht/~lattis/muon/archive/0.3.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 14b175b29c4390a69c1d9b5758b4689f0456c749822476af67511f007be2e503 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 14b175b29c4390a69c1d9b5758b4689f0456c749822476af67511f007be2e503
Requires -------- muon (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libarchive.so.13()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcurl.so.4()(64bit) libpkgconf.so.5()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides -------- muon: muon muon(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2317848 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Python, Haskell, SugarActivity, R, Ocaml, PHP, fonts, Perl, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2317848
Clemens Lang cllang@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |cllang@redhat.com
--- Comment #8 from Clemens Lang cllang@redhat.com --- I see one test failure only:
fail 0.89s project+meson-tests:meson-tests/common/223 persubproject options stderr: '/builddir/build/BUILD/muon-0.3.1-build/muon-0.3.1/tests/project/runner.meson:69:1: error command failed 69 | run_command(ninja.split(' '), '-C', build, check: true) ^______________________________________________________ stdout: [1/14] compiling c subprojects/sub2/liblib1.so.p/foo.c.o [2/14] compiling c subprojects/sub2/liblib1.a.p/foo.c.o [3/14] compiling c subprojects/sub1/liblib1.a.p/foo.c.o [4/14] compiling cpp subprojects/sub2/liblib2.a.p/foo.cpp.o [5/14] compiling cpp test1.p/main.cpp.o [6/14] compiling c liblib1.a.p/foo.c.o ../../../../../../tests/project/meson-tests/common/223 persubproject options/subprojects/sub2/foo.c:4:2: warning: #warning before C23 is a GCC extension 4 | #warning This should not produce error | ^~~~~~~ ../../../../../../tests/project/meson-tests/common/223 persubproject options/subprojects/sub2/foo.c:4:2: warning: #warning This should not produce error [-Wcpp] [7/14] linking static subprojects/sub2/liblib1.a [8/14] linking liblib1.so [9/14] linking static liblib1.a ../../../../../../tests/project/meson-tests/common/223 persubproject options/subprojects/sub1/foo.c: In function ‘foo’: ../../../../../../tests/project/meson-tests/common/223 persubproject options/subprojects/sub1/foo.c:6:7: error: unused variable ‘x’ [-Werror=unused-variable] 6 | int x; | ^ cc1: all warnings being treated as errors ../../../../../../tests/project/meson-tests/common/223 persubproject options/subprojects/sub2/foo.c:4:2: warning: #warning before C23 is a GCC extension 4 | #warning This should not produce error | ^~~~~~~ ../../../../../../tests/project/meson-tests/common/223 persubproject options/subprojects/sub2/foo.c:4:2: warning: #warning This should not produce error [-Wcpp] stderr: samu: job failed with status 1: gcc -g -Og -Werror -fdiagnostics-color=always -O2 -flto=auto -ffat-lto-objects -fexceptions -g -grecord-gcc-switches -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-U_FORTIFY_SOURCE,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=3 -Wp,-D_GLIBCX X_ASSERTIONS -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1 -fstack-protector-strong -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-annobin-cc1 -mbranch-protection=standard -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -fstack-clash-protection -fno-omit-frame-pointer -m no-omit-leaf-frame-pointer -I subprojects/sub1 -I '../../../../../../tests/project/meson-tests/common/223 persubproject options/subprojects/sub1' -fpic -MD -MQ subprojects/sub1/liblib1.a.p/foo.c.o -MF subprojects/sub1/liblib1.a.p/foo.c.o.d -o subprojects/sub1/liblib1.a.p/foo.c.o -c '../../../../../../tests/project/meson-tests/common/223 persubproject options/subprojects/sub1/foo.c' samu: subcommand failed /builddir/build/BUILD/muon-0.3.1-build/muon-0.3.1/tests/project/runner.meson:69:1: error in function run_command 69 | run_command(ninja.split(' '), '-C', build, check: true) ^______________________________________________________ '
The test is supposed to check that "223 persubproject options/subprojects/sub1/foo.c" compiles because the subproject resets the warning_level variable to 0. According to https://mesonbuild.com/Builtin-options.html, 0 means "compiler default", and chances are that compiler default in a fedora package build is not what muon expects it to be.
In fact, when I finish the build of muon, install it in a container, and attempt to run the same test, it passes:
[root@9b65fcf175ca 223 persubproject options]# muon setup builddir detected compiler gcc '14.2.1' (['cc']), linker: ld (['ld']), static_linker: ar (['ar']) detected compiler gcc '14.2.1' (['c++']), linker: ld (['ld']), static_linker: ar (['ar']) configuring 'persubproject options', version: undefined [sub1] entering subproject 'sub1' [sub1] detected compiler gcc '14.2.1' (['cc']), linker: ld (['ld']), static_linker: ar (['ar']) [sub1] detected compiler gcc '14.2.1' (['c++']), linker: ld (['ld']), static_linker: ar (['ar']) [sub1] configuring 'sub1', version: undefined [sub2] entering subproject 'sub2' [sub2] detected compiler gcc '14.2.1' (['cc']), linker: ld (['ld']), static_linker: ar (['ar']) [sub2] detected compiler gcc '14.2.1' (['c++']), linker: ld (['ld']), static_linker: ar (['ar']) [sub2] configuring 'sub2', version: undefined found dependency 'libcpp14' (declared dependency) version undefined static
setup complete [root@9b65fcf175ca 223 persubproject options]# (cd builddir && ninja) [4/14] compiling c subprojects/sub2/liblib1.a.p/foo.c.o ../subprojects/sub2/foo.c:4:2: warning: #warning before C23 is a GCC extension 4 | #warning This should not produce error | ^~~~~~~ ../subprojects/sub2/foo.c:4:2: warning: #warning This should not produce error [-Wcpp] [5/14] compiling c subprojects/sub2/liblib1.so.p/foo.c.o ../subprojects/sub2/foo.c:4:2: warning: #warning before C23 is a GCC extension 4 | #warning This should not produce error | ^~~~~~~ ../subprojects/sub2/foo.c:4:2: warning: #warning This should not produce error [-Wcpp] [14/14] linking test1
The failing test is thus likely a false positive.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2317848
--- Comment #9 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Thanks for the feedback.
- Rpmlint insists that licensing breakdown must be provided. Honestly I don't see it as a blocker but looks like
- forked samurai, tinyjson, and memmem.c are licensed under MIT
- sha_256 is under Unlicense
- the rest of source code is under GPLv3
- tests artifacts are either under ASL 2.0 or not specified
Added license breakdown. Test artifacts are not included in built and installed code.
- Also please find out why these two tests are failing. I'd have a meson drop-in replacement which passes all the tests.\
Excluded tests that fail because of different build flags in Fedora to those used in the tests. These tests pass under normal build conditions.
- Adjust whitespaces/tabs. Remove double whitespaces. A cosmetic issue, not a big deal.
Improved formatting.
In addition excluded conflicting documentation man page file from meson.
spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/muon/fedora-rawhid... srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/muon/fedora-rawhid...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2317848
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2056282 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2056282&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 8126425 to 8226415
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2317848
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8226415 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2317848
Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: muon - C |Review Request: muon-meson |implementation of meson |- C implementation of meson
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2317848
Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #12 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com --- Looks good to me. I don't see any other issues. This package is
================ === APPROVED === ================
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2317848
Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |RELEASE_PENDING
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/muon-meson
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2317848
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RELEASE_PENDING |MODIFIED
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-1416bc6c9c (muon-meson-0.3.1^20240926.a2f0f77e-1.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-1416bc6c9c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2317848
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-a901a0d19c (muon-meson-0.3.1^20240926.a2f0f77e-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-a901a0d19c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2317848
--- Comment #16 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Thanks for the review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2317848
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-1416bc6c9c has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-1416bc6c9c *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-1416bc6c9c
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=2317848
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-a901a0d19c has been pushed to the Fedora 41 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-a901a0d19c *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-a901a0d19c
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=2317848
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Last Closed| |2024-11-16 02:01:43
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-1416bc6c9c (muon-meson-0.3.1^20240926.a2f0f77e-1.fc40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2317848
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-a901a0d19c (muon-meson-0.3.1^20240926.a2f0f77e-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com