https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2169611
Bug ID: 2169611 Summary: Review request: moarvm Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: topazus@outlook.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
I build moarvm that is retired on COPR. So I need the moarvm to be re-reviewed.
build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/topazus/fedora-copr/build/5519107/ Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/topazus/fedora-copr/fedor... Fedora Review: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/topazus/fedora-copr/fedor... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/topazus/fedora-copr/fedor...
Description: MoarVM (short for Metamodel On A Runtime Virtual Machine) is a runtime built for the 6model object system. It is primarily aimed at running NQP and Rakudo, but should be able to serve as a backend for any compilers built using the NQP compiler toolchain.
Fedora Account System Username: topazus
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2169611
Robin Lee robinlee.sysu@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |robinlee.sysu@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR), | |2169613, 2169612 Summary|Review request: moarvm |Review request: moarvm - | |Metamodel On A Runtime | |Virtual Machine
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2169612 [Bug 2169612] Review request: nqp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2169613 [Bug 2169613] Review request: rakudo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2169611
Vasiliy Glazov vascom2@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |vascom2@gmail.com CC| |vascom2@gmail.com Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Vasiliy Glazov vascom2@gmail.com --- Why mimalloc still bundled?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2169611
--- Comment #3 from Felix Wang topazus@outlook.com --- I updated moarvm.spec file and rebuild it without the mimalloc bundled. Here are the details: build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/topazus/raku/build/5525219/ Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/topazus/raku/fedora-rawhi... Fedora Review: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/topazus/raku/fedora-rawhi... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/topazus/raku/fedora-rawhi...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2169611
Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://moarvm.org/
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5525432 (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=2169611
--- Comment #5 from Vasiliy Glazov vascom2@gmail.com --- Now need to decide which package will own %{_datadir}/nqp directory. I think %{_datadir}/nqp should be in moarvm.
Also may be should add BR libzstd-devel?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2169611
--- Comment #6 from Felix Wang topazus@outlook.com --- I think it can add libzstd-devel to BuildRequires. ref: https://github.com/MoarVM/MoarVM/blob/92aac35c6cd1b10e82940b154877399e189dd0...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2169611
--- Comment #7 from Felix Wang topazus@outlook.com --- After adding libzstd-devel and make a patch to use system mimalloc by looking at the [pr](https://github.com/MoarVM/MoarVM/pull/1742), the building of moarvm package results successfully.
ref: build on COPR: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/topazus/raku/build/5527622/ spec file: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/topazus/raku/fedora-rawhi... https://github.com/MoarVM/MoarVM/issues/1741 patch file I made: https://gist.githubusercontent.com/topazus/28e27497316b92b2db87e4ac23fbb12f/...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2169611
--- Comment #8 from Vasiliy Glazov vascom2@gmail.com --- Approved.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_devel_packages - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/moarvm See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: 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: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* [generated file]", "MIT License", "BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Boost Software License 1.0", "*No copyright* Boost Software License 1.0 Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Public domain", "Unicode License Agreement - Data Files and Software (2016) [generated file]", "Boost Software License 1.0 Apache License 2.0", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Eclipse Public License 1.0", "*No copyright* GNU Free Documentation License". 574 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/vascom/2169611-moarvm/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/nqp, /usr/share/nqp/lib, /usr/share/nqp/lib/MAST [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/nqp/lib/MAST, /usr/share/nqp/lib, /usr/share/nqp [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 460800 bytes in 26 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 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 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: [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. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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. [x]: %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]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [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.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: moarvm-2022.12-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm moarvm-devel-2022.12-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm moarvm-debuginfo-2022.12-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm moarvm-debugsource-2022.12-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm moarvm-2022.12-1.fc39.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/tmp6d9xi20v')] checks: 31, packages: 5
moarvm.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libmoar.so moarvm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary moar moarvm-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation moarvm-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/include/moar/gen/config.h /usr/include/moar/config.h ======================================= 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 2.1 s ======================================
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: moarvm-debuginfo-2022.12-1.fc39.x86_64.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/tmp69ugmjre')] checks: 31, packages: 1
======================================= 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s ======================================
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ 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 checks: 31, packages: 4
moarvm.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libmoar.so moarvm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary moar moarvm-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation moarvm-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/include/moar/gen/config.h /usr/include/moar/config.h 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 2.0 s
Unversioned so-files -------------------- moarvm: /usr/lib64/libmoar.so
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/MoarVM/MoarVM/releases/download/2022.12/MoarVM-2022.12.ta... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 51c3e9c9a7a191c148f213b65ae1f4fcfe5d4b7c16c86300e9ee8e18eaa8becb CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 51c3e9c9a7a191c148f213b65ae1f4fcfe5d4b7c16c86300e9ee8e18eaa8becb
Requires -------- moarvm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libffi.so.8()(64bit) libffi.so.8(LIBFFI_BASE_8.0)(64bit) libffi.so.8(LIBFFI_CLOSURE_8.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libmoar.so()(64bit) libtommath.so.1()(64bit) libuv.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
moarvm-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config moarvm(x86-64)
moarvm-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
moarvm-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- moarvm: libmoar.so()(64bit) moarvm moarvm(x86-64)
moarvm-devel: moarvm-devel moarvm-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(moar)
moarvm-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libmoar.so-2022.12-1.fc39.x86_64.debug()(64bit) moarvm-debuginfo moarvm-debuginfo(x86-64)
moarvm-debugsource: moarvm-debugsource moarvm-debugsource(x86-64)
Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/vascom/2169611-moarvm/srpm/moarvm.spec 2023-02-15 09:06:37.898124123 +0300 +++ /home/vascom/2169611-moarvm/srpm-unpacked/moarvm.spec 2023-02-14 03:00:00.000000000 +0300 @@ -11,15 +11,8 @@ URL: https://moarvm.org/ Source: https://github.com/MoarVM/MoarVM/releases/download/%%7Bversion%7D/MoarVM-%%7... -Patch0: https://gist.githubusercontent.com/topazus/28e27497316b92b2db87e4ac23fbb12f/...
-BuildRequires: gcc -BuildRequires: make -BuildRequires: perl -BuildRequires: libffi-devel -BuildRequires: libatomic_ops-devel -BuildRequires: libtommath-devel -BuildRequires: libuv-devel -BuildRequires: libzstd-devel -BuildRequires: mimalloc-devel +BuildRequires: gcc make perl +BuildRequires: libffi-devel libatomic_ops-devel +BuildRequires: libtommath-devel libuv-devel
%description @@ -39,5 +32,5 @@
%prep -%autosetup -p1 -n MoarVM-%{version} +%autosetup -n MoarVM-%{version}
# make sure to not bundle this @@ -54,5 +47,5 @@ --has-libatomic_ops \ --has-libtommath \ - --has-mimalloc + --no-mimalloc %{make_build}
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2169611 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Haskell, PHP, SugarActivity, Perl, Java, Python, R, Ocaml, fonts Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2169611
Vasiliy Glazov vascom2@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #9 from Vasiliy Glazov vascom2@gmail.com --- I am approved review. But you must change %{_datadir}/nqp/lib/MAST/*.nqp to %{_datadir}/nqp during import process.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2169611
--- Comment #10 from Felix Wang topazus@outlook.com --- (In reply to Vasiliy Glazov from comment #9)
I am approved review. But you must change %{_datadir}/nqp/lib/MAST/*.nqp to %{_datadir}/nqp during import process.
ok, I will change it.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2169611
Felix Wang topazus@outlook.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |CLOSED Resolution|--- |COMPLETED Last Closed| |2023-02-24 13:36:59
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org