https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241701
Bug ID: 2241701 Summary: Review Request: aemu - Android emulator libraries Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: marcandre.lureau@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://elmarco.fedorapeople.org/aemu.spec SRPM URL: https://elmarco.fedorapeople.org/aemu-0.1.2-1.20231002gitd6e6b99b.fc40.src.r... Description: Android emulator libraries, used by gfxstream (for qemu virtio-gpu) Fedora Account System Username: elmarco
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241701
Marc-Andre Lureau marcandre.lureau@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |2242058
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242058 [Bug 2242058] Review Request: gfxstream - Graphics Streaming Kit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241701
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |benson_muite@emailplus.org Flags| |fedora-review? CC| |benson_muite@emailplus.org
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241701
Petr Menšík pemensik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pemensik@redhat.com
--- Comment #1 from Petr Menšík pemensik@redhat.com --- I would recommend using %autosetup.
devel subpackage does not own %{_libdir}/pkgconfig or depend on package owning it. Otherwise it seems good.
Also I think %{?ldconfig_scriptlets} should be used for forward compatibility if it gets undefined. It is no-op on recent releases anyway.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241701
--- Comment #2 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [ ]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [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]: 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]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic: [X]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [ ]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "Apache License 2.0". 37 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/2241701-aemu/licensecheck.txt [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Test run failed [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]: 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 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). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: 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. [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: aemu-0.1.2-1.20231002gitd6e6b99b.fc40.aarch64.rpm aemu-devel-0.1.2-1.20231002gitd6e6b99b.fc40.aarch64.rpm aemu-debuginfo-0.1.2-1.20231002gitd6e6b99b.fc40.aarch64.rpm aemu-debugsource-0.1.2-1.20231002gitd6e6b99b.fc40.aarch64.rpm aemu-0.1.2-1.20231002gitd6e6b99b.fc40.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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/tmp0p22o_tt')] checks: 31, packages: 5
aemu-devel.aarch64: W: no-documentation aemu.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: aemu-20231002.tar.xz 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.2 s
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: aemu-debuginfo-0.1.2-1.20231002gitd6e6b99b.fc40.aarch64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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/tmpkehcvro0')] checks: 31, packages: 1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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: 31, packages: 4
aemu.aarch64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libaemu-snapshot.so.0.1.2 _ZN7android4base11getFileSizeEiPm (/usr/lib64/libaemu-snapshot.so.0.1.2) aemu.aarch64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libaemu-snapshot.so.0.1.2 _ZN7android4base16getHighResTimeUsEv (/usr/lib64/libaemu-snapshot.so.0.1.2) aemu.aarch64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libaemu-snapshot.so.0.1.2 _ZN7android4base11StdioStream5closeEv (/usr/lib64/libaemu-snapshot.so.0.1.2) aemu.aarch64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libaemu-snapshot.so.0.1.2 _ZN7android4base6Stream7getBe32Ev (/usr/lib64/libaemu-snapshot.so.0.1.2) aemu.aarch64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libaemu-snapshot.so.0.1.2 _ZN7android4base11StdioStreamC1EOS1_ (/usr/lib64/libaemu-snapshot.so.0.1.2) aemu.aarch64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libaemu-snapshot.so.0.1.2 _ZN7android4base17CompressingStreamC1ERNS0_6StreamE (/usr/lib64/libaemu-snapshot.so.0.1.2) aemu.aarch64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libaemu-snapshot.so.0.1.2 _ZN7android4base17CompressingStreamD1Ev (/usr/lib64/libaemu-snapshot.so.0.1.2) aemu.aarch64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libaemu-snapshot.so.0.1.2 _ZN7android4base6Stream7putBe64Em (/usr/lib64/libaemu-snapshot.so.0.1.2) aemu.aarch64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libaemu-snapshot.so.0.1.2 _ZN7android4base11StdioStreamD1Ev (/usr/lib64/libaemu-snapshot.so.0.1.2) aemu.aarch64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libaemu-snapshot.so.0.1.2 _ZN7android4base6Stream7getBe64Ev (/usr/lib64/libaemu-snapshot.so.0.1.2) aemu.aarch64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libaemu-snapshot.so.0.1.2 _ZN7android4base19DecompressingStreamD1Ev (/usr/lib64/libaemu-snapshot.so.0.1.2) aemu.aarch64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libaemu-snapshot.so.0.1.2 _ZN7android4base6Stream7putBe32Ej (/usr/lib64/libaemu-snapshot.so.0.1.2) aemu.aarch64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libaemu-snapshot.so.0.1.2 __emu_log_print (/usr/lib64/libaemu-snapshot.so.0.1.2) aemu.aarch64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libaemu-snapshot.so.0.1.2 _ZN7android4base19DecompressingStreamC1ERNS0_6StreamE (/usr/lib64/libaemu-snapshot.so.0.1.2) aemu-devel.aarch64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 14 errors, 1 warnings, 14 badness; has taken 2.0 s
Requires -------- aemu (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit) libaemu-base.so.0()(64bit) libaemu-logging.so.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.11)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.13)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.7)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
aemu-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config aemu(aarch-64) libaemu-base.so.0()(64bit) libaemu-host-common.so.0()(64bit) libaemu-logging.so.0()(64bit) libaemu-snapshot.so.0()(64bit)
aemu-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
aemu-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- aemu: aemu aemu(aarch-64) libaemu-base.so.0()(64bit) libaemu-host-common.so.0()(64bit) libaemu-logging.so.0()(64bit) libaemu-snapshot.so.0()(64bit)
aemu-devel: aemu-devel aemu-devel(aarch-64) pkgconfig(aemu_base) pkgconfig(aemu_host_common) pkgconfig(aemu_logging) pkgconfig(aemu_snapshot)
aemu-debuginfo: aemu-debuginfo aemu-debuginfo(aarch-64) debuginfo(build-id)
libaemu-base.so.0.1.2-0.1.2-1.20231002gitd6e6b99b.fc40.aarch64.debug()(64bit)
libaemu-host-common.so.0.1.2-0.1.2-1.20231002gitd6e6b99b.fc40.aarch64.debug()(64bit)
libaemu-logging.so.0.1.2-0.1.2-1.20231002gitd6e6b99b.fc40.aarch64.debug()(64bit)
libaemu-snapshot.so.0.1.2-0.1.2-1.20231002gitd6e6b99b.fc40.aarch64.debug()(64bit)
aemu-debugsource: aemu-debugsource aemu-debugsource(aarch-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2241701 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: PHP, Perl, Haskell, SugarActivity, fonts, R, Python, Ocaml, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Comments: a) The source can be downloaded using the full git hash. Consider using %global commit d6e6b99ba6ec2b6b2502aa46dcb57d6b0fa53787 Source0: https://android.googlesource.com/platform/hardware/google/aemu/+archive/%%7B... b) Maybe check if upstream will add a license file c) Build failures on ppc64, s390x and i686 https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=107283304
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241701
--- Comment #3 from Marc-Andre Lureau marcandre.lureau@redhat.com --- (In reply to Petr Menšík from comment #1)
I would recommend using %autosetup.
ok
devel subpackage does not own %{_libdir}/pkgconfig or depend on package owning it. Otherwise it seems good.
I don't think it's necessary, looking at other packages.
Also I think %{?ldconfig_scriptlets} should be used for forward compatibility if it gets undefined. It is no-op on recent releases anyway.
I'll drop it.
thanks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241701
--- Comment #4 from Marc-Andre Lureau marcandre.lureau@redhat.com --- (In reply to Benson Muite from comment #2)
Comments: a) The source can be downloaded using the full git hash. Consider using %global commit d6e6b99ba6ec2b6b2502aa46dcb57d6b0fa53787 Source0: https://android.googlesource.com/platform/hardware/google/aemu/+archive/ %{commit}.tar.gz
That creates issue with file naming, subdirectory etc.. Not really worth it imho, but I am all for elegant working suggestions :)
b) Maybe check if upstream will add a license file
I reached them, in the meantime I added a LICENSE file
c) Build failures on ppc64, s390x and i686 https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=107283304
Yeah, updated
thanks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241701
--- Comment #5 from Petr Menšík pemensik@redhat.com --- (In reply to Marc-Andre Lureau from comment #3)
(In reply to Petr Menšík from comment #1)
devel subpackage does not own %{_libdir}/pkgconfig or depend on package owning it. Otherwise it seems good.
I don't think it's necessary, looking at other packages.
I am afraid it is necessary. Either add Requires to package owning the directory or make it part of your package.
This is part of MUST section, so it is not optional: [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Read more about at at [1]. I would solve it by adding after %package devel: Requires: pkg-config%{_isa}
1. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/UnownedDirectories...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241701
--- Comment #6 from Marc-Andre Lureau marcandre.lureau@redhat.com --- (In reply to Petr Menšík from comment #5)
Read more about at at [1]. I would solve it by adding after %package devel: Requires: pkg-config%{_isa}
thanks, done
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241701
--- Comment #7 from Marc-Andre Lureau marcandre.lureau@redhat.com --- Upstream added a LICENSE file, and fixed some headers. Last version:
Spec URL: https://elmarco.fedorapeople.org/aemu.spec SRPM URL: https://elmarco.fedorapeople.org/aemu-0.1.2-1.20231002gitdd8b929c.fc40.src.r...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241701
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6541992 (failed)
Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.
- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field
--- 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=2241701
--- Comment #9 from Marc-Andre Lureau marcandre.lureau@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://elmarco.fedorapeople.org/aemu.spec SRPM URL: https://elmarco.fedorapeople.org/aemu-0.1.2-1.20231018gitdd8b929c.fc40.src.r...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241701
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://android.googlesourc | |e.com/platform/hardware/goo | |gle/aemu
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6541999 (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=2241701
Pavel Solovev daron439@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |daron439@gmail.com
--- Comment #11 from Pavel Solovev daron439@gmail.com --- version information in the Release field is deprecated https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#tradit... should be Version: 0.1.2^%{gitdate}git%{gitversion} https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_snaps...
Requires: pkg-config%{_isa} in the devel package should not be needed, it's autogenerated: rpm -qp --requires ./results_aemu/0.1.2/1.20231018gitdd8b929c.fc39/aemu-devel-0.1.2-1.20231018gitdd8b929c.fc39.x86_64.rpm /usr/bin/pkg-config ...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241701
--- Comment #12 from Marc-Andre Lureau marcandre.lureau@redhat.com --- (In reply to Pavel Solovev from comment #11)
version information in the Release field is deprecated https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/ #traditional-versioning should be Version: 0.1.2^%{gitdate}git%{gitversion} https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/ #_snapshots
fixed
Requires: pkg-config%{_isa} in the devel package should not be needed, it's autogenerated: rpm -qp --requires ./results_aemu/0.1.2/1.20231018gitdd8b929c.fc39/aemu-devel-0.1.2-1. 20231018gitdd8b929c.fc39.x86_64.rpm /usr/bin/pkg-config ...
removed
thanks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241701
--- Comment #13 from Marc-Andre Lureau marcandre.lureau@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://elmarco.fedorapeople.org/aemu.spec SRPM URL: https://elmarco.fedorapeople.org/aemu-0.1.2%5e20231018gitdd8b929c-1.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241701
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 1994416 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1994416&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 6541999 to 6543323
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241701
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6543323 (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=2241701
--- Comment #16 from Marc-Andre Lureau marcandre.lureau@redhat.com --- good to go? @daron439@gmail.com @pemensik@redhat.com @benson_muite@emailplus.org
thanks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241701
--- Comment #17 from Pavel Solovev daron439@gmail.com ---
Release: 1
%{?dist} tag is missing Release: 1%{?dist}
%dir %{_includedir}/aemu/ %{_includedir}/aemu/*
Can be simplified to %{_includedir}/aemu/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241701
--- Comment #18 from Marc-Andre Lureau marcandre.lureau@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://elmarco.fedorapeople.org/aemu.spec SRPM URL: https://elmarco.fedorapeople.org/aemu-0.1.2%5e20231018gitdd8b929c-1.fc40.src...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241701
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 1994434 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1994434&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 6543323 to 6543765
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241701
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6543765 (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=2241701
--- Comment #21 from Marc-Andre Lureau marcandre.lureau@redhat.com --- @daron439@gmail.com @pemensik@redhat.com @benson_muite@emailplus.org
ping
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241701
--- Comment #22 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- It seems possible to build and run the tests. Add dependencies on gtest-devel and gmock-devel On Fedora 38 on AArch64, all tests pass when using Clang, one test fails when using Gcc
Third party code has different licenses: https://android.googlesource.com/platform/hardware/google/aemu/+/refs/heads/... it is referenced by some of the included headers in the devel package, but commit dd8b929c247ce9872c775e0e5ddc4300011d0e82 indicates they can be patched out.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241701
Marc-Andre Lureau marcandre.lureau@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(benson_muite@emai | |lplus.org)
--- Comment #23 from Marc-Andre Lureau marcandre.lureau@redhat.com --- (In reply to Benson Muite from comment #22)
It seems possible to build and run the tests. Add dependencies on gtest-devel and gmock-devel On Fedora 38 on AArch64, all tests pass when using Clang, one test fails when using Gcc
It fails to build on f38 for me when I enable tests: /usr/bin/ld: libaemu-host-common.so.0.1.2: undefined reference to symbol '_ZN5emugl12AbortMessageC1EPKcS2_iNS_10FatalErrorE'
Third party code has different licenses: https://android.googlesource.com/platform/hardware/google/aemu/+/refs/heads/ main/third-party/cuda/include/host-common it is referenced by some of the included headers in the devel package, but commit dd8b929c247ce9872c775e0e5ddc4300011d0e82 indicates they can be patched out.
What do you suggest to do now?
thanks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241701
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(benson_muite@emai | |lplus.org) |
--- Comment #24 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_compiler_macros https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=108326166
Upstream recommends clang, but it would be good to check if they are aware of failing test with gcc. Maybe an extra compilation option needs to be activated?
The external headers do not seem to be packaged, but they are referenced by some of the packaged headers. Perhaps ask code maintainers and check what other distros do.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241701
--- Comment #25 from Marc-Andre Lureau marcandre.lureau@redhat.com --- (In reply to Benson Muite from comment #24)
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_compiler_macros https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=108326166
Upstream recommends clang, but it would be good to check if they are aware of failing test with gcc. Maybe an extra compilation option needs to be activated?
build.log says "No tests were found!!!"
If I ENABLE_VKCEREAL_TESTS=ON, I get the same linking error, even with clang: "/usr/bin/ld: /tmp/lto-llvm-b5d429.o: undefined reference to symbol '_ZN5emugl14setDieFunctionESt8optionalISt8functionIFvvEEE'"
The external headers do not seem to be packaged, but they are referenced by some of the packaged headers. Perhaps ask code maintainers and check what other distros do.
The commit says they aren't needed by gfxstream. I'll drop them.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241701
--- Comment #26 from Marc-Andre Lureau marcandre.lureau@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://elmarco.fedorapeople.org/aemu.spec SRPM URL: https://elmarco.fedorapeople.org/aemu-0.1.2%5e20231031gitdd8b929c-1.fc40.src...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241701
--- Comment #27 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 1996319 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1996319&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 6543765 to 6583957
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241701
--- Comment #28 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6583957 (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=2241701
Marc-Andre Lureau marcandre.lureau@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(benson_muite@emai | |lplus.org)
--- Comment #29 from Marc-Andre Lureau marcandre.lureau@redhat.com --- Hi Benson, anything else? thanks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241701
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(benson_muite@emai | |lplus.org) |
--- Comment #30 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- With static linking tests can run: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=108534700
ringbuffer tests seem to fail sporadically. Tests do not build with dynamic linking.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241701
Marc-Andre Lureau marcandre.lureau@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(benson_muite@emai | |lplus.org)
--- Comment #31 from Marc-Andre Lureau marcandre.lureau@redhat.com --- (In reply to Benson Muite from comment #30)
With static linking tests can run: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=108534700
ringbuffer tests seem to fail sporadically. Tests do not build with dynamic linking.
ok, I reported the issues to the maintainers.
Is it ok without tests at this point?
thanks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241701
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(benson_muite@emai | |lplus.org) |
--- Comment #32 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- It seems tests will not run if it is not statically linked. Maybe a path needs to be adjusted so that appropriate functions are found to allow for static linking?
It is possible to run a subset of the tests: https://google.github.io/googletest/advanced.html#running-a-subset-of-the-te... or add a patch to skip failing tests: https://google.github.io/googletest/advanced.html#skipping-test-execution
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241701
--- Comment #33 from Marc-Andre Lureau marcandre.lureau@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://elmarco.fedorapeople.org/aemu.spec SRPM URL: https://elmarco.fedorapeople.org/aemu-0.1.2%5e20231031gitdd8b929c-1.fc40.src...
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #32)
It seems tests will not run if it is not statically linked. Maybe a path needs to be adjusted so that appropriate functions are found to allow for static linking?
This is for upstream to handle at this point.
It is possible to run a subset of the tests: https://google.github.io/googletest/advanced.html#running-a-subset-of-the- tests or add a patch to skip failing tests: https://google.github.io/googletest/advanced.html#skipping-test-execution
Ok, I added a patch to skip the failing tests.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241701
Marc-Andre Lureau marcandre.lureau@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(benson_muite@emai | |lplus.org)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241701
--- Comment #34 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 1997430 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1997430&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 6583957 to 6603240
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241701
--- Comment #35 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6603240 (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=2241701
Marc-Andre Lureau marcandre.lureau@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(benson_muite@emai | |lplus.org) | |needinfo?(benson_muite@emai | |lplus.org)
--- Comment #36 from Marc-Andre Lureau marcandre.lureau@redhat.com --- Hi @benson_muite@emailplus.org let me know if anything else missing or give review+. Thanks!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241701
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ |needinfo?(benson_muite@emai | |lplus.org) | |needinfo?(benson_muite@emai | |lplus.org) | |needinfo?(benson_muite@emai | |lplus.org) | Status|ASSIGNED |POST
--- Comment #37 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Fedora 39 build failed. Probably another test you want to disable. Does build on all architectures. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=108836782
Can you add a comment in the spec file why a static library build is used and add a link to the reported issue upstream so that if it is fixed, one could use a shared library. This can be done on import.
Approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241701
--- Comment #38 from Marc-Andre Lureau marcandre.lureau@redhat.com --- (In reply to Benson Muite from comment #37)
Fedora 39 build failed. Probably another test you want to disable. Does build on all architectures. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=108836782
Can you add a comment in the spec file why a static library build is used and add a link to the reported issue upstream so that if it is fixed, one could use a shared library. This can be done on import.
Unfortunately, this is not very helpful: https://android-review.googlesource.com/c/platform/hardware/google/aemu/+/28...
I don't know of better ways to report an issue but to contact Gurchetan Singh gurchetansingh@chromium.org directly.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241701
--- Comment #39 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/aemu
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241701
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #40 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-9c042511cd has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-9c042511cd
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241701
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2023-11-10 12:03:34
--- Comment #41 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-9c042511cd has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com