https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2310159
Bug ID: 2310159 Summary: Review Request: bpftool - Management of eBPF programs and maps Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: vmalik@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://vmalik.fedorapeople.org/bpftool.spec SRPM URL: https://vmalik.fedorapeople.org/bpftool-7.4.0-1.fc42.src.rpm Description: This package contains the bpftool, which allows inspection and simple manipulation of eBPF programs and maps. Fedora Account System Username: vmalik
bpftool is not a new package, it is currently built as a part of kernel RPM build (because its source files are a part of the kernel source tree). This is a request to move it to a separate package which will be built from the official GitHub mirror [1].
There are two main reasons for this change: 1. bpftool version is independent of the kernel and having it in the kernel spec causes all kinds of problems, 2. bpftool is loosely coupled to the libbpf library which is also packaged separately [2].
This change is accompanied by removing bpftool package build from kernel specfile [3].
[1] https://github.com/libbpf/bpftool [2] https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/libbpf/libbpf/ [3] https://gitlab.com/cki-project/kernel-ark/-/merge_requests/3338
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2310159
Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ngompa13@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |ngompa13@gmail.com Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- Taking this review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2310159
Viktor Malik vmalik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(ngompa13@gmail.co | |m)
--- Comment #2 from Viktor Malik vmalik@redhat.com --- Hi @ngompa13@gmail.com, any update on this? Thanks!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2310159
Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(ngompa13@gmail.co | |m) |
--- Comment #3 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- Initial review notes:
BuildRequires: gcc make BuildRequires: binutils-devel elfutils-libelf-devel libcap-devel llvm-devel clang BuildRequires: python3-docutils BuildRequires: kernel-devel
Can you please reformulate this so it's one per line? That way it's nicer on diffs and such.
%make_install -C src/ prefix=%{_prefix} bash_compdir=%{_sysconfdir}/bash_completion.d/ mandir=%{_mandir} doc-install
"bash_compdir=" should be set to "%{bash_completions_dir}" (like so: "bash_compdir=%{bash_completions_dir}")
%{_sysconfdir}/bash_completion.d/bpftool
This needs updating to "%{bash_completions_dir}/bpftool"
%{_mandir}/man8/bpftool-cgroup.8.gz %{_mandir}/man8/bpftool-gen.8.gz %{_mandir}/man8/bpftool-iter.8.gz %{_mandir}/man8/bpftool-link.8.gz %{_mandir}/man8/bpftool-map.8.gz %{_mandir}/man8/bpftool-prog.8.gz %{_mandir}/man8/bpftool-perf.8.gz %{_mandir}/man8/bpftool.8.gz %{_mandir}/man8/bpftool-net.8.gz %{_mandir}/man8/bpftool-feature.8.gz %{_mandir}/man8/bpftool-btf.8.gz %{_mandir}/man8/bpftool-struct_ops.8.gz
This should be simplified to "%{_mandir}/man8/bpftool*.8*".
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2310159
--- Comment #4 from Viktor Malik vmalik@redhat.com --- Thanks for the review! I updated the specfile.
In the meantime, there was also a new bpftool release (7.5.0) so I updated to it which allowed to drop the manual patch.
Spec URL: https://vmalik.fedorapeople.org/bpftool.spec SRPM URL: https://vmalik.fedorapeople.org/bpftool-7.5.0-1.fc42.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2310159
--- Comment #5 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: 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. [!]: 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* BSD 2-Clause License", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2", "BSD 2-Clause License", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "*No copyright* Creative Commons Attribution 4.0", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1". 197 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ngompa/2310159-bpftool/licensecheck.txt [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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. [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]: 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: [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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [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]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define kernel_version %(rpm -q --qf "%%{VERSION}-%%{RELEASE}.%%{ARCH}" kernel-devel) [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [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. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: bpftool-7.5.0-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm bpftool-7.5.0-1.fc42.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-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/tmpe10rby6w')] checks: 32, packages: 2
bpftool.src: E: spelling-error ('eBPF', 'Summary(en_US) eBPF -> Feb') bpftool.src: E: spelling-error ('eBPF', '%description -l en_US eBPF -> Feb') bpftool.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('eBPF', 'Summary(en_US) eBPF -> Feb') bpftool.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('eBPF', '%description -l en_US eBPF -> Feb') bpftool.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 7.4.0-1 ['7.5.0-1.fc42', '7.5.0-1'] 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 1 warnings, 7 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.2 s
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/libbpf/bpftool/releases/download/v7.5.0/bpftool-libbpf-v7... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1468d3fb8c70698359a6593d8828f0e0a56b72244cb8632c6e1947e11b3520b9 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1468d3fb8c70698359a6593d8828f0e0a56b72244cb8632c6e1947e11b3520b9
Requires -------- bpftool (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libLLVM.so.19.1()(64bit) libLLVM.so.19.1(LLVM_19.1)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcap.so.2()(64bit) libelf.so.1()(64bit) libelf.so.1(ELFUTILS_1.0)(64bit) libelf.so.1(ELFUTILS_1.3)(64bit) libelf.so.1(ELFUTILS_1.5)(64bit) libelf.so.1(ELFUTILS_1.6)(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) libz.so.1(ZLIB_1.2.3.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides -------- bpftool: bpftool bpftool(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2310159 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Java, Perl, Haskell, fonts, R, PHP, Python, Ocaml Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2310159
--- Comment #6 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #5)
[!]: 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* BSD 2-Clause License", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2", "BSD 2-Clause License", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "*No copyright* Creative Commons Attribution 4.0", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1". 197 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ngompa/2310159-bpftool/licensecheck.txt [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec.
On second review, it looks like the LGPL reference is from parsing documentation text. So this is fine.
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
Are there tests to run in the %check section? If so, can we run them?
bpftool.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 7.4.0-1 ['7.5.0-1.fc42', '7.5.0-1']
Changelog entry needs the version to be fixed to 7.5.0-1 instead.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2310159
Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Status|ASSIGNED |POST
--- Comment #7 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #6)
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #5)
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
Are there tests to run in the %check section? If so, can we run them?
Looks like the answer to this is no. At this point, I guess this package is ready to go...
bpftool.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 7.4.0-1 ['7.5.0-1.fc42', '7.5.0-1']
Changelog entry needs the version to be fixed to 7.5.0-1 instead.
Please fix this on import.
Now...
PACKAGE APPROVED.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2310159
--- Comment #8 from Viktor Malik vmalik@redhat.com --- (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #7)
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #6)
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #5)
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
Are there tests to run in the %check section? If so, can we run them?
Looks like the answer to this is no. At this point, I guess this package is ready to go...
That's correct, there are no tests available at the moment which we could use.
bpftool.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 7.4.0-1 ['7.5.0-1.fc42', '7.5.0-1']
Changelog entry needs the version to be fixed to 7.5.0-1 instead.
Please fix this on import.
Will do.
Now...
PACKAGE APPROVED.
Thank you!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2310159
Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |RELEASE_PENDING
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/bpftool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2310159
Viktor Malik vmalik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Status|RELEASE_PENDING |CLOSED Last Closed| |2024-11-27 12:57:30
--- Comment #10 from Viktor Malik vmalik@redhat.com --- The package is now published:
https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/bpftool/bpftool/
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com