https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872830
Bug ID: 1872830 Summary: Review Request: mlir - Multi-Level Intermediate Representation Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: sguelton@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://sergesanspaille.fedorapeople.org/mlir.spec SRPM URL: https://sergesanspaille.fedorapeople.org/mlir-11.0.0-0.1.rc1.fc31.src.rpm Description: The MLIR project is a novel approach to building reusable and extensible compiler infrastructure. MLIR aims to address software fragmentation, improve compilation for heterogeneous hardware, significantly reduce the cost of building domain specific compilers, and aid in connecting existing compilers together. Fedora Account System Username: sergesanspaille
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872830
--- Comment #1 from serge_sans_paille sguelton@redhat.com --- spec file submitted on behalf of Cristian Balint, with the following changes:
Harmonize MLIR capitalization License updated to Apache 2.0 with exceptions Added zlib-devel dependency
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872830
Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 zebob.m@gmail.com --- - Add a comment explaining what the patch does:
Patch0: mlir-cmake-standalone.patch
- Package are missing the arch info with %{?_isa}
%package static Summary: MLIR static files Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
%description static MLIR static files.
%package devel Summary: MLIR development files Requires: %{name}-static%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
%description devel MLIR develompent files.
- In onder to avoid unintentional soname bump, wo recommend not globbing the major soname version:
%{_libdir}/libMLIR*.so.11* %{_libdir}/libmlir_runner_utils.so.11* %{_libdir}/libmlir_c_runner_utils.so.11* %{_libdir}/libmlir_c_runner_utils_static.so.11*
- The build fails with:
[ 61%] Generating LinalgNamedStructuredOps.td, LinalgNamedStructuredOps.cpp.inc cd /builddir/build/BUILD/llvm-project-11.0.0rc1/mlir/x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu/include/mlir/Dialect/Linalg/IR && ../../../../../bin/mlir-linalg-ods-gen -gen-ods-decl /builddir/build/BUILD/llvm-project-11.0.0rc1/mlir/include/mlir/Dialect/Linalg/IR/LinalgNamedStructuredOpsSpec.tc
/builddir/build/BUILD/llvm-project-11.0.0rc1/mlir/x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu/include/mlir/Dialect/Linalg/IR/LinalgNamedStructuredOps.td ../../../../../bin/mlir-linalg-ods-gen: error while loading shared libraries: libMLIRIR.so.11: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory gmake[2]: *** [include/mlir/Dialect/Linalg/IR/CMakeFiles/MLIRLinalgNamedStructuredOpsIncGen.dir/build.make:86: include/mlir/Dialect/Linalg/IR/LinalgNamedStructuredOps.td] Error 127 gmake[2]: *** Deleting file 'include/mlir/Dialect/Linalg/IR/LinalgNamedStructuredOps.td' gmake[2]: Leaving directory '/builddir/build/BUILD/llvm-project-11.0.0rc1/mlir/x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu' gmake[1]: *** [CMakeFiles/Makefile2:3574: include/mlir/Dialect/Linalg/IR/CMakeFiles/MLIRLinalgNamedStructuredOpsIncGen.dir/all] Error 2 gmake[1]: Leaving directory '/builddir/build/BUILD/llvm-project-11.0.0rc1/mlir/x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu' gmake: *** [Makefile:152: all] Error 2
Ok Koji has built it on x86_64 but expect some failures otherwise. Try building without multithreading?
- mlir.src: W: strange-permission mlir-cmake-standalone.patch 600
should be 644
- ASL 2.0 with exceptions does not exist on the valid licenses list:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#SoftwareLicenses
Please ask legal ML if this license is suitable for Fedora.
- Not sire what to do with this:
mlir.x86_64: E: shared-lib-without-dependency-information /usr/lib64/libMLIRCallInterfaces.so.11 mlir.x86_64: E: shared-lib-without-dependency-information /usr/lib64/libMLIRCopyOpInterface.so.11 mlir.x86_64: E: shared-lib-without-dependency-information /usr/lib64/libMLIRDerivedAttributeOpInterface.so.11 mlir.x86_64: E: shared-lib-without-dependency-information /usr/lib64/libMLIRLoopLikeInterface.so.115 mlir.x86_64: E: shared-lib-without-dependency-information /usr/lib64/libMLIRViewLikeInterface.so.11
Is it expected?
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== 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 successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* [generated file]". 1469 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/mlir/review-mlir/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/doc/mlir [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. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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 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 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]: Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if present. Note: Package has .a files: mlir-static. [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: [!]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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). [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in mlir- static , mlir-devel [-]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [y]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. [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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: mlir-11.0.0-0.1.rc1.fc34.x86_64.rpm mlir-static-11.0.0-0.1.rc1.fc34.x86_64.rpm mlir-devel-11.0.0-0.1.rc1.fc34.x86_64.rpm mlir-doc-11.0.0-0.1.rc1.fc34.noarch.rpm mlir-debuginfo-11.0.0-0.1.rc1.fc34.x86_64.rpm mlir-debugsource-11.0.0-0.1.rc1.fc34.x86_64.rpm mlir-11.0.0-0.1.rc1.fc34.src.rpm mlir.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Multi -> Mulch, Mufti mlir.x86_64: W: invalid-license ASL 2.0 with exceptions mlir.x86_64: E: shared-lib-without-dependency-information /usr/lib64/libMLIRCallInterfaces.so.11 mlir.x86_64: E: shared-lib-without-dependency-information /usr/lib64/libMLIRCopyOpInterface.so.11 mlir.x86_64: E: shared-lib-without-dependency-information /usr/lib64/libMLIRDerivedAttributeOpInterface.so.11 mlir.x86_64: E: shared-lib-without-dependency-information /usr/lib64/libMLIRLoopLikeInterface.so.11 mlir.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libMLIRMlirOptMain.so.11 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 mlir.x86_64: E: shared-lib-without-dependency-information /usr/lib64/libMLIRViewLikeInterface.so.11 mlir.x86_64: W: no-documentation mlir-static.x86_64: W: invalid-license ASL 2.0 with exceptions mlir-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation mlir-devel.x86_64: W: no-dependency-on mlir/mlir-libs/libmlir mlir-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US develompent -> development, developed mlir-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-license ASL 2.0 with exceptions mlir-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation mlir-doc.noarch: W: invalid-license ASL 2.0 with exceptions mlir-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license ASL 2.0 with exceptions mlir-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-license ASL 2.0 with exceptions mlir.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Multi -> Mulch, Mufti mlir.src: W: invalid-license ASL 2.0 with exceptions mlir.src: W: strange-permission mlir-cmake-standalone.patch 600 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 16 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872830
--- Comment #3 from serge_sans_paille sguelton@redhat.com --- - License tag considered approved, see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1791958 - Moved to llvm 11 rc2 - __isa and chmod update done - arm arch marked as excluded (I've spent too much time on that one -j1, disabling lto, changing LD_LIBRARY_PATH, using rpath, all these approach failed - doxygen disabled, that's what we do for LLVM/clang/etc and the output is arch-dependant anyway, which is a pain (changing mtime, removing footer from doxygen or fallingback to svg all work but are not enough) - I've double checked the '*.so' librry raising shared-lib-without-dependency-information and these are placeholders - empty libraries, so it makes sence they have no dep information.
Update uploaded at
Spec URL: https://sergesanspaille.fedorapeople.org/mlir.spec SRPM URL: https://sergesanspaille.fedorapeople.org/mlir-11.0.0-0.1.rc2.fc31.src.rpm
koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=50511989
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872830
--- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 zebob.m@gmail.com --- The file doesn't seem updated, neither the SRPM or Koji build:
- Package are missing the arch info with %{?_isa}
%package static Summary: MLIR static files Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
%description static MLIR static files.
%package devel Summary: MLIR development files Requires: %{name}-static%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
%description devel MLIR development files.
- In order to avoid unintentional soname bump, wo recommend not globbing the major soname version:
%{_libdir}/libMLIR*.so.11* %{_libdir}/libmlir_runner_utils.so.11* %{_libdir}/libmlir_c_runner_utils.so.11* %{_libdir}/libmlir_c_runner_utils_static.so.11*
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872830
--- Comment #5 from serge_sans_paille sguelton@redhat.com --- Looks like I messed up my scp, I indeed worked on an obsolete spec file, the links have been updated :
Spec URL: https://sergesanspaille.fedorapeople.org/mlir.spec SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/8802/50548802/mlir-11.0.0-0.1...
koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=50548795
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872830
Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 zebob.m@gmail.com --- OK LGTM, package approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872830
--- Comment #7 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mlir
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872830
serge_sans_paille sguelton@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2020-09-02 11:11:26
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872830
--- Comment #8 from serge_sans_paille sguelton@redhat.com --- Thanks for the review!
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com