[Bug 2142363] New: Review Request: zig-srpm-macros - RPM macros for building Zig packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142363
Bug ID: 2142363 Summary: Review Request: zig-srpm-macros - RPM macros for building Zig packages Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: sentrycraft123@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/sentry/zig/fedora-rawhide... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/sentry/zig/fedora-rawhide... Description: RPM macros for building Zig packages Fedora Account System Username: sentry
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142363
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value CC| |benson_muite@emailplus.org Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |benson_muite@emailplus.org Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142363
--- Comment #1 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
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. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d, /usr/lib/rpm [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 [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [ ]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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: [!]: 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. [ ]: 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]: 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]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: zig-srpm-macros-1-1.fc39.noarch.rpm zig-srpm-macros-1-1.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/tmpjgceaw0q')] checks: 31, packages: 2
zig-srpm-macros.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib zig-srpm-macros.noarch: W: no-documentation zig-srpm-macros.spec: W: no-%build-section ======================== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.2 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: 1
zig-srpm-macros.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib zig-srpm-macros.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s
Requires -------- zig-srpm-macros (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- zig-srpm-macros: rpm_macro(zig_arches) zig-srpm-macros
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2142363 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Ocaml, PHP, Perl, Python, C/C++, R, Haskell, Ruby, Java, fonts, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Comments: a) Can the source be put on Pagure or some other forge? See for example: https://pagure.io/go-rpm-macros/blob/master/f/rpm/macros.d/macros.go-srpm Python and Lua seems not to use another forge: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-rpm-macros https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/lua-rpm-macros b) Please add a license file c) Can %{_rpmmacrodir} be used instead of %{_rpmconfigdir}/macros.d ? d) Maybe the name should just be zig-rpm-macros with the srpm marcos as a subpackage?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142363
--- Comment #2 from Jan Drögehoff sentrycraft123@gmail.com --- (In reply to Benson Muite from comment #1)
Comments: a) Can the source be put on Pagure or some other forge? See for example: https://pagure.io/go-rpm-macros/blob/master/f/rpm/macros.d/macros.go-srpm Python and Lua seems not to use another forge: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-rpm-macros https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/lua-rpm-macros
the plan was to put it on src.fedoraproject.org, like python and lua do it. But for that I'd need the package approved so I can put in the request.
b) Please add a license file
With the answer to a) this would implicitly put all macros under MIT (just like the python macros), but I can add one explicitly if thats desired.
c) Can %{_rpmmacrodir} be used instead of %{_rpmconfigdir}/macros.d ?
Can do
d) Maybe the name should just be zig-rpm-macros with the srpm marcos as a subpackage?
That would probably be better, I'll have to work out which macro would be best for each package.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142363
--- Comment #3 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Had not seen: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142334 Suggests separate srpm macros, not sure if a sub package with no main package dependency would work.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142363
Aleksei Bavshin alebastr89@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |alebastr89@gmail.com Blocks| |2142334
--- Comment #4 from Aleksei Bavshin alebastr89@gmail.com --- (In reply to Jan Drögehoff from comment #2)
b) Please add a license file
With the answer to a) this would implicitly put all macros under MIT (just like the python macros), but I can add one explicitly if thats desired.
MIT requires that the copyright notice is always distributed along with the sources. This might not be always enforced, but it is the right thing to do. lua-rpm-macros and pyproject-rpm-macros are good recent examples.
d) Maybe the name should just be zig-rpm-macros with the srpm marcos as a subpackage?
That would probably be better, I'll have to work out which macro would be best for each package.
IMO, it would be more convenient to keep the %zig_build family of macros along with the compiler package and lock the versions (e.g. do `Requires: (zig-rpm-macros = %{version} if zig-rpm-macros)` in the main `zig` package). As 0.11.0 has shown, these macros may require backward-incompatible changes. Nonetheless, a standalone zig-rpm-macros package is totally safe with a correct versioning and dependencies. So that's just a matter of your preference.
BTW, %_zig_version is the only macro definition that actually requires data from zig.spec, and I'm not sure if it is even useful.
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #3)
not sure if a sub package with no main package dependency would work.
Subpackage of `zig` is probably not a good idea for the reasons already explained in bug2142334. Subpackage of a potential `zig-rpm-macros` should be fine.
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142334 [Bug 2142334] `ExclusiveArch: %{zig_arches}` causes build failure in Fedora koji
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142363
--- Comment #5 from Jan Drögehoff sentrycraft123@gmail.com ---
MIT requires that the copyright notice is always distributed along with the sources. This might not be always enforced, but it is the right thing to do. lua-rpm-macros and pyproject-rpm-macros are good recent examples.
Yeah, thats reasonable, didn't think about that.
IMO, it would be more convenient to keep the %zig_build family of macros along with the compiler package and lock the versions (e.g. do `Requires: (zig-rpm-macros = %{version} if zig-rpm-macros)` in the main `zig` package). As 0.11.0 has shown, these macros may require backward-incompatible changes. Nonetheless, a standalone zig-rpm-macros package is totally safe with a correct versioning and dependencies. So that's just a matter of your preference.
agreed. The only thing that is really needed for srpm generator is the exclusive arches and to make it easier for maintainers a build-only runtime dependency can be added Requires: (zig-rpm-macros = %{version}-%{release} if rpm-build)
BTW, %_zig_version is the only macro definition that actually requires data from zig.spec, and I'm not sure if it is even useful.
Its probably best to remove it until a use case is found.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142363
--- Comment #6 from Jan Drögehoff sentrycraft123@gmail.com --- rewrote the spec to be similar to other existing (s)rpm-macro packages. also added a little note to the srpm macro. Others do it and I see no harm in it
copr doesn't store a copy of the spec or srpm in the build root anymore so I moved them to my own server as a short-term workaround
Spec URL: https://files.jandroegehoff.de/fedora/zig-srpm-macros-1-1/zig-srpm-macros.sp... SRPM URL: https://files.jandroegehoff.de/fedora/zig-srpm-macros-1-1/zig-srpm-macros-1-...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142363
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6563215 (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=2142363
--- Comment #8 from Jan Drögehoff sentrycraft123@gmail.com --- Odd, builds just fine on my copr https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/sentry/zig/build/6563667/
Lets try that again [fedora-review-service-build]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142363
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6563676 (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=2142363
Jan Drögehoff sentrycraft123@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(benson_muite@emai | |lplus.org)
--- Comment #10 from Jan Drögehoff sentrycraft123@gmail.com --- Checked over the above review template and outside "Reviewer should test in mock" being erroneously marked as failed all seems good.
@benson_muite@emailplus.org all your comments appear to be addressed, could you do another review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142363
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(benson_muite@emai | |lplus.org) |
--- Comment #11 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Thanks for updating this. Will need a couple more days.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142363
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Status|ASSIGNED |POST
--- Comment #12 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
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* MIT License", "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/2142363-zig-srpm-macros/licensecheck.txt [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d, /usr/lib/rpm [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. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [ ]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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: [-]: 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. [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. [ ]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: zig-srpm-macros-1-1.fc40.noarch.rpm zig-srpm-macros-1-1.fc40.src.rpm ============================ 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpgai_tym1')] checks: 31, packages: 2
zig-srpm-macros.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib zig-srpm-macros.noarch: W: no-url-tag zig-srpm-macros.src: W: no-url-tag zig-srpm-macros.noarch: W: no-documentation zig-srpm-macros.spec: W: no-%build-section 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 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: 32, packages: 1
zig-srpm-macros.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib zig-srpm-macros.noarch: W: no-url-tag zig-srpm-macros.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s
Requires -------- zig-srpm-macros (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- zig-srpm-macros: rpm_macro(zig_arches) zig-srpm-macros
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2142363 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Ocaml, fonts, SugarActivity, C/C++, Haskell, Python, Perl, Java, PHP, R Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Comments: a) Please add Requires: rpm to the spec file for directory ownership. Can be done on import. b) Approved
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142363
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/zig-srpm-macros
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com