[Bug 1308985] New: Review Request: vulkan - Driver loader and validation layers for Vulkan
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308985
Bug ID: 1308985 Summary: Review Request: vulkan - Driver loader and validation layers for Vulkan Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ajax@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://ajax.fedorapeople.org/vulkan/vulkan.spec SRPM URL: https://ajax.fedorapeople.org/vulkan/vulkan-1.0.3-2.fc23.src.rpm Description:
Vulkan is a new high-performance rendering and compute API from the Khronos Group. This package contains the driver loader library, validation layers, and vulkaninfo sample utility for the Vulkan API.
Fedora Account System Username: ajax
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308985
Igor Gnatenko i.gnatenko.brain@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |i.gnatenko.brain@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |i.gnatenko.brain@gmail.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308985
Igor Gnatenko i.gnatenko.brain@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Igor Gnatenko i.gnatenko.brain@gmail.com --- Updated SRPM: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/vulkan-1.0.3-0.1.git1affe... Updated SPEC: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/vulkan.spec
Everything looks okay now except glslang which we are using for building (I think we are using it for tests-only so it is okay). In the future we will package it.
As agreed with Adam, I fixed spec and we will use my spec for Fedora repos.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308985
Igor Gnatenko i.gnatenko.brain@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: vulkan - |Review Request: vulkan - |Driver loader and |Vulkan loader and |validation layers for |validation layers |Vulkan |
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308985
Igor Gnatenko i.gnatenko.brain@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1308986
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308986 [Bug 1308986] Review Request: anvil - Vulkan drivers for Intel gen7+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308985
Jonathan Underwood jonathan.underwood@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jonathan.underwood@gmail.co | |m
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Underwood jonathan.underwood@gmail.com --- Err. This is a pretty scant review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308985
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Underwood jonathan.underwood@gmail.com --- Igor: did you intend setting the review flag ass passed (+)? I suspect not, as there is no evidence here that you've reviewed the package.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308985
Jonathan Underwood jonathan.underwood@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(i.gnatenko.brain@ | |gmail.com)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308985
Igor Gnatenko i.gnatenko.brain@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(i.gnatenko.brain@ | |gmail.com) |
--- Comment #4 from Igor Gnatenko i.gnatenko.brain@gmail.com --- (In reply to Jonathan Underwood from comment #3)
Igor: did you intend setting the review flag ass passed (+)? I suspect not, as there is no evidence here that you've reviewed the package.
I reviewed package and fixed all problems which I found during review, so I set + because from my POV everything is good.
If you want to re-review - you are welcome.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308985
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Underwood jonathan.underwood@gmail.com --- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process
Includes:
5. Include the text of your review in a comment in the ticket. For easy readability, simply use a regular comment instead of an attachment.
I really don't think the state of this review at present is acceptable.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308985
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Underwood jonathan.underwood@gmail.com --- rpmlint output:
vulkan.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Vulkan vulkan.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libVkLayer_mem_tracker.so libVkLayer_mem_tracker.so vulkan.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libVkLayer_device_limits.so libVkLayer_device_limits.so vulkan.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libVkLayer_threading.so libVkLayer_threading.so vulkan.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libVkLayer_unique_objects.so libVkLayer_unique_objects.so vulkan.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/liblayer_utils.so liblayer_utils.so vulkan.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libVkLayer_param_checker.so libVkLayer_param_checker.so vulkan.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libVkLayer_swapchain.so libVkLayer_swapchain.so vulkan.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libVkLayer_object_tracker.so libVkLayer_object_tracker.so vulkan.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libVkLayer_draw_state.so libVkLayer_draw_state.so vulkan.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libVkLayer_image.so libVkLayer_image.so vulkan.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vulkaninfo vulkan-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib vulkan-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation vulkan-filesystem.noarch: W: no-documentation vulkan.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Vulkan
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308985
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Underwood jonathan.underwood@gmail.com ---
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines - Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: These BR are not needed: gcc gcc-c++ See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 - Forcing the scripts to use python 2.7 should be conditionalised for RHEL - no need to do that for Fedora.
- Other stuff below
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Apache (v2.0)", "GPL", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (3 clause)". 50 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jgu/Fedora/1308985-vulkan/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. [!]: Development files must be in a -devel package
I'm pretty sure the .so's aren't actually devel libs so shouldn't be moved to the devel package, but they do need to be versioned.
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
See above.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [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 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.
Needs fixing.
[x]: 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 vulkan- devel , vulkan-filesystem , vulkan-debuginfo [x]: 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.
Is Ajax technically upstream? If not, those patches do need pushing upstream and an appropriate comment added to spec for each patch.
[-]: Scriptlets must be sane, if 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. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint [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.
Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 1.2.14 starting (python version = 3.4.3)... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins Start: run Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled dnf cache Start: cleaning dnf metadata Finish: cleaning dnf metadata INFO: enabled ccache Mock Version: 1.2.14 INFO: Mock Version: 1.2.14 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /home/jgu/Fedora/1308985-vulkan/results/vulkan-1.0.3-0.1.git1affe90.fc24.x86_64.rpm /home/jgu/Fedora/1308985-vulkan/results/vulkan-devel-1.0.3-0.1.git1affe90.fc24.x86_64.rpm /home/jgu/Fedora/1308985-vulkan/results/vulkan-filesystem-1.0.3-0.1.git1affe90.fc24.noarch.rpm /home/jgu/Fedora/1308985-vulkan/results/vulkan-debuginfo-1.0.3-0.1.git1affe90.fc24.x86_64.rpm /home/jgu/Fedora/1308985-vulkan/results/vulkan-debuginfo-1.0.3-0.1.git1affe90.fc24.x86_64.rpm ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output. # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 24 --setopt=deltarpm=false install /home/jgu/Fedora/1308985-vulkan/results/vulkan-1.0.3-0.1.git1affe90.fc24.x86_64.rpm /home/jgu/Fedora/1308985-vulkan/results/vulkan-devel-1.0.3-0.1.git1affe90.fc24.x86_64.rpm /home/jgu/Fedora/1308985-vulkan/results/vulkan-filesystem-1.0.3-0.1.git1affe90.fc24.noarch.rpm /home/jgu/Fedora/1308985-vulkan/results/vulkan-debuginfo-1.0.3-0.1.git1affe90.fc24.x86_64.rpm /home/jgu/Fedora/1308985-vulkan/results/vulkan-debuginfo-1.0.3-0.1.git1affe90.fc24.x86_64.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts
Rpmlint ------- Checking: vulkan-1.0.3-0.1.git1affe90.fc24.x86_64.rpm vulkan-devel-1.0.3-0.1.git1affe90.fc24.x86_64.rpm vulkan-filesystem-1.0.3-0.1.git1affe90.fc24.noarch.rpm vulkan-debuginfo-1.0.3-0.1.git1affe90.fc24.x86_64.rpm vulkan-1.0.3-0.1.git1affe90.fc24.src.rpm vulkan.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Vulkan vulkan.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libVkLayer_mem_tracker.so libVkLayer_mem_tracker.so vulkan.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libVkLayer_device_limits.so libVkLayer_device_limits.so vulkan.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libVkLayer_threading.so libVkLayer_threading.so vulkan.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libVkLayer_unique_objects.so libVkLayer_unique_objects.so vulkan.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/liblayer_utils.so liblayer_utils.so vulkan.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libVkLayer_param_checker.so libVkLayer_param_checker.so vulkan.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libVkLayer_swapchain.so libVkLayer_swapchain.so vulkan.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libVkLayer_object_tracker.so libVkLayer_object_tracker.so vulkan.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libVkLayer_draw_state.so libVkLayer_draw_state.so vulkan.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libVkLayer_image.so libVkLayer_image.so vulkan.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vulkaninfo vulkan-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib vulkan-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation vulkan-filesystem.noarch: W: no-documentation vulkan.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Vulkan 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 10 errors, 6 warnings.
Requires -------- vulkan-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libvulkan.so.1()(64bit) vulkan(x86-64)
vulkan-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
vulkan-filesystem (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
vulkan (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) liblayer_utils.so()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libvulkan.so.1()(64bit) libxcb.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) vulkan-filesystem
Provides -------- vulkan-devel: vulkan-devel vulkan-devel(x86-64)
vulkan-debuginfo: vulkan-debuginfo vulkan-debuginfo(x86-64)
vulkan-filesystem: vulkan-filesystem
vulkan: libVkLayer_device_limits.so()(64bit) libVkLayer_draw_state.so()(64bit) libVkLayer_image.so()(64bit) libVkLayer_mem_tracker.so()(64bit) libVkLayer_object_tracker.so()(64bit) libVkLayer_param_checker.so()(64bit) libVkLayer_swapchain.so()(64bit) libVkLayer_threading.so()(64bit) libVkLayer_unique_objects.so()(64bit) liblayer_utils.so()(64bit) libvulkan.so.1()(64bit) vulkan vulkan(x86-64)
Unversioned so-files -------------------- vulkan: /usr/lib64/libVkLayer_device_limits.so vulkan: /usr/lib64/libVkLayer_draw_state.so vulkan: /usr/lib64/libVkLayer_image.so vulkan: /usr/lib64/libVkLayer_mem_tracker.so vulkan: /usr/lib64/libVkLayer_object_tracker.so vulkan: /usr/lib64/libVkLayer_param_checker.so vulkan: /usr/lib64/libVkLayer_swapchain.so vulkan: /usr/lib64/libVkLayer_threading.so vulkan: /usr/lib64/libVkLayer_unique_objects.so vulkan: /usr/lib64/liblayer_utils.so
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/KhronosGroup/Vulkan-LoaderAndValidationLayers/archive/1af... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 36253f9982e7cec27d7cde375203dbe88c4b7f49c885963f0e0b8de07db971c0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 36253f9982e7cec27d7cde375203dbe88c4b7f49c885963f0e0b8de07db971c0 https://github.com/KhronosGroup/glslang/archive/6c292d3ba78533fed7b5ec46bb93... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 299c411c44bf44d0e380f743112f3f1969d3f7dca8b1e91f550c0a95834bb493 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 299c411c44bf44d0e380f743112f3f1969d3f7dca8b1e91f550c0a95834bb493
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1308985 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308985
Jonathan Underwood jonathan.underwood@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review+ |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308985
Igor Gnatenko i.gnatenko.brain@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from Igor Gnatenko i.gnatenko.brain@gmail.com ---
- Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
You didn't attach anything and in fact it is installable, you have problems with mock or we have broken rawhide.
- Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages
See below.
- All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: These BR are not needed: gcc gcc-c++ See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2
This guidelines changed recently. Now we need to require explicitly.
- Forcing the scripts to use python 2.7 should be conditionalised for RHEL - no need to do that for Fedora.
It is compile-time only. But I agree that this could be fixed.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Apache (v2.0)", "GPL", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (3 clause)". 50 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jgu/Fedora/1308985-vulkan/licensecheck.txt
Code which goes to install (linking and whatever) only MIT.
I'm pretty sure the .so's aren't actually devel libs so shouldn't be
moved to the devel package, but they do need to be versioned. Not yet.
[!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
It is using %make_build which effectively does smp_mflags
Is Ajax technically upstream? If not, those patches do need pushing
upstream and an appropriate comment added to spec for each patch.
Most of all patches made only for compatibility with our guidelines and never will be accepted in upstream as it stays now. (Read as buildsystem changes). Some of patches we are going to send to upstream, but not right now.
So after all only python2/python3 question still exists which could be easily fixed and versioning of so-files but I don't think that we need to do it because if understood correctly it is not going via public API so it is okay.
I am still insisting that package is totally compatible with guidelines except few points which I mentioned above.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308985
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Underwood jonathan.underwood@gmail.com --- (In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #8)
- Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
You didn't attach anything and in fact it is installable, you have problems with mock or we have broken rawhide.
- Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages
See below.
- All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: These BR are not needed: gcc gcc-c++ See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2
This guidelines changed recently. Now we need to require explicitly.
- Forcing the scripts to use python 2.7 should be conditionalised for RHEL - no need to do that for Fedora.
It is compile-time only. But I agree that this could be fixed.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Apache (v2.0)", "GPL", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (3 clause)". 50 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jgu/Fedora/1308985-vulkan/licensecheck.txt
Code which goes to install (linking and whatever) only MIT.
I'm pretty sure the .so's aren't actually devel libs so shouldn't be
moved to the devel package, but they do need to be versioned. Not yet.
Why not? This needs at the very least an explicit comment in the spec file, and an FPC exception - right now, you're breaking guidelines. "Not yet" just doesn't cut it.
[!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
It is using %make_build which effectively does smp_mflags
Is Ajax technically upstream? If not, those patches do need pushing
upstream and an appropriate comment added to spec for each patch.
Most of all patches made only for compatibility with our guidelines and never will be accepted in upstream as it stays now. (Read as buildsystem changes). Some of patches we are going to send to upstream, but not right now.
OK, so comments need adding to the spec file indicating this, in order to comply with guidelines.
So after all only python2/python3 question still exists which could be easily fixed and versioning of so-files but I don't think that we need to do it because if understood correctly it is not going via public API so it is okay.
The libraries are currently installed in the linker path and so are public at the moment. They either need versioning, or moving to a non-public location.
I am still insisting that package is totally compatible with guidelines except few points which I mentioned above.
"Except a few points" doesn't cut it. Your approach to this review is worryingly sloppy.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308985
--- Comment #10 from Adam Jackson ajax@redhat.com --- (In reply to Jonathan Underwood from comment #9)
I'm pretty sure the .so's aren't actually devel libs so shouldn't be
moved to the devel package, but they do need to be versioned. Not yet.
Not ever, in fact.
Why not? This needs at the very least an explicit comment in the spec file, and an FPC exception - right now, you're breaking guidelines. "Not yet" just doesn't cut it.
Because they are not things applications link against. Vulkan layers are requested by the application explicitly, through OS configuration, or by the user through environment variables, and the loader is responsible for inserting them into the call chain. They do not provide useful functionality on their own, and there is no plausible application that would try to use them on their own.
There is no functional benefit to moving them to a directory other than %{_libdir}, so I chose not to. Khronos intentionally left that decision up to the operating system.
OK, so comments need adding to the spec file indicating this, in order to comply with guidelines.
Sure, we can do that.
Those patches are probably not _currently_ acceptable to upstream as they make some policy decisions that other OSes might want to do differently. I'm happy to get that delta down as close to zero as possible.
The libraries are currently installed in the linker path and so are public at the moment. They either need versioning, or moving to a non-public location.
I really can't agree with this logic. All library paths are public. It would certainly be _nice_ if there existed the complement of 'ld -z nodlopen' to mean "no really, do not link against this library", but there does not. And the set of packages extant that explicitly link against libraries with these names is empty. There is no danger here, only missing linker features.
The relevant section of the packaging guidelines seems simply to be missing a clause of the conditional:
"As an additional complication, some software generates unversioned shared objects which are not intended to be used as system libraries. These files are usually plugins or modular functionality specific to an application, and are not located in the ld library paths or cache. [...] Usually, these unversioned shared objects can be found in a dedicated subdirectory under /usr/lib or /usr/lib64 (e.g. /usr/lib/purple-2/ is the plugin directory used for libpurple applications). In these cases, the unversioned shared objects do not need to be placed in a -devel package."
"In these cases" could be read to mean _either_ "in cases where such libraries exist at all" or "in cases where such libraries are packaged in a subdir below %{_libdir}".
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308985
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Underwood jonathan.underwood@gmail.com --- Thanks for the information, Adam - this is precisely the sort of thing that should be raised and documented during package review, and is why I objected to Igor's non-existant (or at least undocumented) review and instant approval.
So, I think we agree that normal practice for unversioned shared objects which are not intended to be used as system libraries (and so not directly linked against) is to place them outside the ld library paths or cache, and the guidelines allow these to not be put in a -devel sub-package. So, I agree, they don't need to be in a -devel, and they don't need to be versioned.
However, I haven't seen a good argument for not putting them under/usr/lib[64]/vulkan ?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308985
jan p. springer jsd@igroup.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jsd@igroup.org
--- Comment #12 from jan p. springer jsd@igroup.org --- any chance the lunarg tools from the sdk could be included?
% ls -1 lunarg-vulkan-sdk/1.0.11.0/x86_64/bin
glslangValidator spirv-as spirv-dis spirv-remap vkjson_info vkreplay vktrace vulkaninfo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308985
Dave Airlie airlied@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |airlied@redhat.com
--- Comment #13 from Dave Airlie airlied@redhat.com --- Upstream so far says they need to be in /usr/lib directly not a subdirectory, and I'd rather not diverge from upstream for no good reason here.
Jan, we can look into packaging those later, let's get the initial package done first please.
So what else is blocking this?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308985
--- Comment #14 from Igor Gnatenko ignatenko@redhat.com --- (In reply to Dave Airlie from comment #13)
Upstream so far says they need to be in /usr/lib directly not a subdirectory, and I'd rather not diverge from upstream for no good reason here.
Jan, we can look into packaging those later, let's get the initial package done first please.
So what else is blocking this?
I don't see any. Probably there needs update to latest version, but it should be trivial.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308985
Michael Cronenworth mike@cchtml.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1356229
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356229 [Bug 1356229] RFE enable the Intel Vulkan driver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308985
Igor Gnatenko ignatenko@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEW Assignee|ignatenko@redhat.com |nobody@fedoraproject.org
--- Comment #15 from Igor Gnatenko ignatenko@redhat.com ---
Source0: vulkan.tar.xz Source1: glslang.tar.xz
using URLs please
Group: System Environment/Libraries Group: Development/Libraries Group: System Environment/Base
not needed
Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
missing %{?_isa}
%doc LICENSE.txt
%license please
#BuildArch: noarch
looks like it owns only noarch directories, so you can uncomment this.
sorry, but I don't have enough free time to continue with this Review Request.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308985
Simone Caronni negativo17@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |negativo17@gmail.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308985
--- Comment #16 from Simone Caronni negativo17@gmail.com --- I also need Vulkan for the Nvidia drivers, so I'm taking it.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308985
leigh scott leigh123linux@googlemail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |leigh123linux@googlemail.co | |m
--- Comment #17 from leigh scott leigh123linux@googlemail.com --- (In reply to Simone Caronni from comment #16)
I also need Vulkan for the Nvidia drivers, so I'm taking it.
I have packaged the latest git 1.0.26.0
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/leigh123linux/Vulkan/builds/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308985
Michael Cronenworth mike@cchtml.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Blocks| |201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) Resolution|--- |CANTFIX Flags|fedora-review+ | Last Closed| |2016-09-27 10:30:47
--- Comment #18 from Michael Cronenworth mike@cchtml.com --- Simone and/or Leigh,
I'm considering this review dead. Adam doesn't respond to requests to move this review forward... even after it was approved.
Please open a new review and assign it to me. I'll get it done.
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449 [Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter response should be blocking this bug.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla