https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860012
--- Comment #3 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik(a)greysector.net>
---
(In reply to Andy Mender from comment #2)
Package builds cleanly in a Fedora 33/Rawhide x86_64 local mock
environment,
but fails via `fedora-review` (possibly related to recent annobin issues).
However, it fails in COPR for Fedora 31 and 32:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/andymenderunix/binaryen/build/
1575944/
and in Koji for Fedora 32:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=47867411
Issues are related to the build dir hierarchy.
I'll fix any build issues on 32 and older in the respective branches.
> Summary: Compiler and toolchain infrastructure library for
WebAssembly
> Name: binaryen
> Version: 95
> Release: 1%{?dist}
> URL:
https://github.com/WebAssembly/binaryen
> Source0: %{url}/archive/version_%{version}/%{name}-version_%{version}.tar.gz
> #
https://github.com/WebAssembly/binaryen/issues/2970
> Patch0: %{name}-95-node-warn.patch
> License: ASL 2.0
> # tests fail on big-endian
> #
https://github.com/WebAssembly/binaryen/issues/2983
> ExcludeArch: ppc64 s390x
> BuildRequires: cmake3
> BuildRequires: gcc-c++
> %if %{with check}
> BuildRequires: nodejs
> %endif
- Could you fix the alignment in these blocks? There should be spaces
between the tags and the values.
There are spaces after each semi-colon. I'm not sure what needs fixing here.
- I would add "gcc" as a BuildRequires as well.
gcc-c++ depends on gcc.
> %{_includedir}/binaryen-c.h
> %{_libdir}/%{name}/libbinaryen.so
The header and unversioned SO should probably live in a separate -devel
package. Not 100% sure in this case.
This is a compiler and the unversioned SO is an internal shared library,
so it doesn't make sense to split it out as it's not usable on its own
(unlike libgcc).
Arguably, I should filter out that SO from both Provides: and Requires:.
The review matrix (some items are missing due to issues with
building):
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
- Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
See:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
The x86_64 RPM from the scratch build I pasted above installs fine. Why are you
trying to install binary RPMs for all arches at the same time on a single
machine? I cannot work.
[...]
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: 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.
It actually doesn't. See below.
[...]
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
I ran rpmlint manually and it caught binaries having the wrong RPATH. I'll fix
that.
Thanks for the review!
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component