[Bug 1647948] New: Review Request: bpftrace - High-level tracing language for Linux eBPF
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647948
Bug ID: 1647948 Summary: Review Request: bpftrace - High-level tracing language for Linux eBPF Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: acaringi@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://acaringi.fedorapeople.org/bpftrace/20181108/bpftrace.spec SRPM URL: https://acaringi.fedorapeople.org/bpftrace/20181108/bpftrace-0.0-1.20181107g...
Description: BPFtrace is a high-level tracing language for Linux enhanced Berkeley Packet Filter (eBPF) available in recent Linux kernels (4.x). BPFtrace uses LLVM as a backend to compile scripts to BPF-bytecode and makes use of BCC for interacting with the Linux BPF system, as well as existing Linux tracing capabilities: kernel dynamic tracing (kprobes), user-level dynamic tracing (uprobes), and tracepoints. The BPFtrace language is inspired by awk and C, and predecessor tracers such as DTrace and SystemTap
Fedora Account System Username: acaringi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647948
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- - Add gcc-c++ as a BR
- Own these directories:
/usr/share/bpftrace/tools, /usr/share/bpftrace
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B
===== 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]: 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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "*No copyright* Apache License (v2.0)", "*No copyright* Expat License", "Expat License", "Unknown or generated", "Apache License (v2.0)". 217 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/bpftrace/review- bpftrace/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/bpftrace/tools, /usr/share/bpftrace [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 [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 92160 bytes in 4 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: 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]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in bpftrace-debuginfo , bpftrace-debugsource [?]: 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. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-]: %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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: bpftrace-0.0-1.20181107git029717b.fc30.x86_64.rpm bpftrace-debuginfo-0.0-1.20181107git029717b.fc30.x86_64.rpm bpftrace-debugsource-0.0-1.20181107git029717b.fc30.x86_64.rpm bpftrace-0.0-1.20181107git029717b.fc30.src.rpm bpftrace.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) eBPF -> Feb bpftrace.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US eBPF -> Feb bpftrace.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bytecode -> byte code, byte-code, decorate bpftrace.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US kprobes -> probes, k probes, robes bpftrace.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uprobes -> probes, u probes, up robes bpftrace.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tracepoints -> trace points, trace-points, contraception bpftrace.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US awk -> awl, aw, wk bpftrace.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) eBPF -> Feb bpftrace.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US eBPF -> Feb bpftrace.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bytecode -> byte code, byte-code, decorate bpftrace.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US kprobes -> probes, k probes, robes bpftrace.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uprobes -> probes, u probes, up robes bpftrace.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tracepoints -> trace points, trace-points, contraception bpftrace.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US awk -> awl, aw, wk 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 14 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647948
--- Comment #2 from Augusto Caringi acaringi@redhat.com --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1)
Add gcc-c++ as a BR
Own these directories:
/usr/share/bpftrace/tools, /usr/share/bpftrace
Spec URL: https://acaringi.fedorapeople.org/bpftrace/20181109/bpftrace.spec SRPM URL: https://acaringi.fedorapeople.org/bpftrace/20181109/bpftrace-0.0-1.20181107g...
Description: BPFtrace is a high-level tracing language for Linux enhanced Berkeley Packet Filter (eBPF) available in recent Linux kernels (4.x). BPFtrace uses LLVM as a backend to compile scripts to BPF-bytecode and makes use of BCC for interacting with the Linux BPF system, as well as existing Linux tracing capabilities: kernel dynamic tracing (kprobes), user-level dynamic tracing (uprobes), and tracepoints. The BPFtrace language is inspired by awk and C, and predecessor tracers such as DTrace and SystemTap
Fedora Account System Username: acaringi
Fixed issues:
- Added gcc-c++ as BR - Now package owns these directories: /usr/share/bpftrace/tools, /usr/share/bpftrace
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647948
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- Perfect, package approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647948
--- Comment #4 from Augusto Caringi acaringi@redhat.com --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #3)
Perfect, package approved.
Robert-André Mauchin, thank you very much for the quick review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647948
Jerome Marchand jmarchan@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(acaringi@redhat.c | |om)
--- Comment #5 from Jerome Marchand jmarchan@redhat.com ---
%cmake . \ -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=RelWithDebInfo \ -DSYSTEM_BCC_LIBRARY:BOOL=ON \ -DENABLE_TESTS:BOOL=OFF \ -DBUILD_SHARED_LIBS:BOOL=OFF
Any specific reason why we don't build the dynamic libraries?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647948
--- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/bpftrace
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647948
Augusto Caringi acaringi@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(acaringi@redhat.c | |om) |
--- Comment #7 from Augusto Caringi acaringi@redhat.com --- (In reply to Jerome Marchand from comment #5)
%cmake . \ -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=RelWithDebInfo \ -DSYSTEM_BCC_LIBRARY:BOOL=ON \ -DENABLE_TESTS:BOOL=OFF \ -DBUILD_SHARED_LIBS:BOOL=OFF
Any specific reason why we don't build the dynamic libraries?
That's a good question, but the answer is: There is no dynamic libraries.
I'll explain...
By default, during the build, bpftrace creates 4 static libraries:
- libresources.a - libparser.a - libarch.a - libast.a
These "private" libraries are then statically linked in bpftrace binary (which is a dynamic linked executable regarding all the other external libraries).
Then when I was working on this package I realized that %cmake macro has a "-DBUILD_SHARED_LIBS:BOOL=ON" which was forcing the build of these "private static by default" libraries as dynamic libraries.
This behavior was causing some problems (bpftrace CMake files are not prepared to handle these libraries as dynamic ones, rpmbuild was identifying new dependencies based on these libraries and so on...)
So, this line: "-DBUILD_SHARED_LIBS:BOOL=OFF" is there just to force back the default behavior.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647948
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- bpftrace-0.0-1.20181107git029717b.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-8a9fc94314
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647948
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- bpftrace-0.0-1.20181107git029717b.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-fb6dcca5d1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647948
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- bpftrace-0.0-1.20181107git029717b.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-fb6dcca5d1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647948
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- bpftrace-0.0-1.20181107git029717b.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-8a9fc94314
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647948
--- Comment #12 from Jerome Marchand jmarchan@redhat.com --- (In reply to Augusto Caringi from comment #7)
(In reply to Jerome Marchand from comment #5)
%cmake . \ -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=RelWithDebInfo \ -DSYSTEM_BCC_LIBRARY:BOOL=ON \ -DENABLE_TESTS:BOOL=OFF \ -DBUILD_SHARED_LIBS:BOOL=OFF
Any specific reason why we don't build the dynamic libraries?
That's a good question, but the answer is: There is no dynamic libraries.
I'll explain...
By default, during the build, bpftrace creates 4 static libraries:
- libresources.a
- libparser.a
- libarch.a
- libast.a
These "private" libraries are then statically linked in bpftrace binary (which is a dynamic linked executable regarding all the other external libraries).
Then when I was working on this package I realized that %cmake macro has a "-DBUILD_SHARED_LIBS:BOOL=ON" which was forcing the build of these "private static by default" libraries as dynamic libraries.
This behavior was causing some problems (bpftrace CMake files are not prepared to handle these libraries as dynamic ones, rpmbuild was identifying new dependencies based on these libraries and so on...)
So, this line: "-DBUILD_SHARED_LIBS:BOOL=OFF" is there just to force back the default behavior.
OK, it makes sense. It's somewhat strange but if anything it should be fixed upstream first.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647948
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- bpftrace-0.0-1.20181107git029717b.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647948
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- bpftrace-0.0-1.20181107git029717b.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com