https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2042701
Bug ID: 2042701 Summary: Review Request: v - The v programming language Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: aysabzevar@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://github.com/aysabzevar/v-rpm/blob/main/v.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/aysabzevar/v-rpm/blob/main/v-0.2.4-1.fc35.src.rpm Description: Simple, fast, safe, compiled language for developing maintainable software. Compiles itself in <1s with zero library dependencies. Fedora Account System Username: aysabzevar
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2042701
--- Comment #1 from Ali Yousefi Sabzevar aysabzevar@gmail.com --- Successful Koji build link: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=81475044
The upstream project: https://github.com/vlang/v
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2042701
--- Comment #2 from Ali Yousefi Sabzevar aysabzevar@gmail.com --- I selected the package name "v" to stick with the upstream package name.
But if you think, "vlang" could be a better name for this package, I got the confirmation from the upstream original developer too.
Regards, Ali
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2042701
Petr Pisar ppisar@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value CC| |ppisar@redhat.com
--- Comment #3 from Petr Pisar ppisar@redhat.com --- The URLs lead to HTML files. Could you please provide a Spec URL to the spec file, like https://raw.githubusercontent.com/aysabzevar/v-rpm/main/v.spec and do the same with SRPM URL? I briefly looked in to the spec file and I have three remarks:
- Upstream has 0.3 version. Could you update this package use that version? I guess you are not going to update this package every week, and then it makes sense to package the releases version. Not a weekly snapshot. Then the Source address should also use that version, like https://github.com/vlang/v/archive/refs/tags/0.3.zip. - The CC command in %build phase does not use distribution-wide compiler flags ($RPM_OPT_FLAGS) and linker flags ($RPM_LD_FLAGS). Even if it's an intermediary program, it would be great to use them. - The spec file claims MIT license. But %files section nowhere packages a license file with %license macro. MIT license requires copying the license text alongside binary executables.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2042701
--- Comment #4 from Petr Pisar ppisar@redhat.com --- Regarding the flags this documentation https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/RPMMacros/#build-flags-macros-and-variables lists corresponding macros.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2042701
Artur Frenszek-Iwicki fedora@svgames.pl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora@svgames.pl
--- Comment #5 from Artur Frenszek-Iwicki fedora@svgames.pl ---
ExcludeArch: s390x ExcludeArch: armv7hl ExcludeArch: aarch64 ExcludeArch: ppc64le
These should be accompanied by some comment explaining whether these architectures are not supported upstream, or the program simply fails to build. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_architecture_sup...
Source1: https://github.com/vlang/vc/archive/refs/heads/master.zip
This links points to the latest commit of the "master" branch in the repository, so the contents of the archive will change over time. Please pick a specific commit and refer to that.
%description Simple, fast, safe, compiled language for developing maintainable software. Compiles itself in <1s with zero library dependencies.
Description should be wrapped to a maximum of 80 characters per line. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_summary_and_desc...
%{__unzip} %{SOURCE1} -d %{_builddir}/ %{__tar} xvfz %{SOURCE0} -C %{_builddir}/ ... %{__mkdir_p} %{buildroot}{%{_libdir},%{_bindir},%{_datadir}/applications} %{__install} -p -D -m 0755 %{_builddir}/v-%{release_build}/v %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/
Using macro forms of system executables is discouraged. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_macros
$CC -std=gnu11 -w -I %{_builddir}/v-%{release_build}/thirdparty/stdatomic/nix -o %{_builddir}/v-%{release_build}/v1 %{_builddir}/vc-master/v.c -lm -lpthread
This ignores Fedora's %{optflags}. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_compiler_flags
%files %{_bindir}/v
The package must include the license text. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuideline...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2042701
Ali Yousefi Sabzevar aysabzevar@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment|0 |updated
--- Comment #0 has been edited ---
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/aysabzevar/v-rpm/main/v.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/aysabzevar/v-rpm/blob/main/v-0.2.4-1.fc35.src.rpm Description: Simple, fast, safe, compiled language for developing maintainable software. Fedora Account System Username: aysabzevar
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2042701
Ali Yousefi Sabzevar aysabzevar@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(fedora@svgames.pl | |)
--- Comment #6 from Ali Yousefi Sabzevar aysabzevar@gmail.com --- @ppisar@redhat.com @fedora@svgames.pl Thanks a ton for your kind reply.
I implemented all pieces of your advice.
Also updated the spec for v 0.3 and included doc, examples and tutorials too.
Could you please take a look?
Thanks in advance.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2042701
--- Comment #7 from Ali Yousefi Sabzevar aysabzevar@gmail.com --- Please find the Koji build link for this updated SPEC below: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=89667418
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2042701
Artur Frenszek-Iwicki fedora@svgames.pl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(fedora@svgames.pl | |) |
--- Comment #8 from Artur Frenszek-Iwicki fedora@svgames.pl ---
Comment: 0 → updated
Please post a comment with new links instead of editing the original bug.
Source1: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/vlang/vc/1521ffb810f89d247113a1f3381b17681...
According to the commit messages, this "vc" commit corresponds to the "weekly.2022.30" tag in the main "v" repo, not "0.3". You should either switch to using the commit that matches the "0.3" tag, or add snapshot info to the Release: field. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_snaps...
%build tar xvfz %{SOURCE0} -C %{_builddir}/
Why not just:
%prep %autosetup -n v-%{release_build}
That will unpack the archive for you and cd into "v-%{release_build}".
$CC -std=gnu11 %{optflags} -w -I %{_builddir}/v-%{release_build}/thirdparty/stdatomic/nix -o %{_builddir}/v-%{release_build}/v1 %{_builddir}/v.c -lm -lpthread
I believe this should include "%{build_ldflags}" as well.
install -m 0755 -p %{_builddir}/v-%{release_build}/v %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/v
If you use %autosetup, then the scripts in %build and %install will start with "%{_builddir}/v-%{release_build}" as their working directory, so you won't have to specify the full path everywhere.
%files %{_datadir}/%{NAME}/examples/* %{_datadir}/%{NAME}/tutorials/*
This will cause the package to own the files inside the directories, but not the directories themselves. You can just use "%{_datadir}/%{name}/" here. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/UnownedDirectories...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2042701
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |benson_muite@emailplus.org
--- Comment #9 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/aysabzevar/v-rpm/main/v.spec SRPM URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/aysabzevar/v-rpm/main/v-0.3-1.fc36.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2042701
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
--- Comment #10 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Unofficial review comments:
a) Thanks for making this available.
b) If you are not a packager, you may need a sponsor.
c) Tried to run the fedora-review tool, it built but failed to install with the output below:
INFO: Build completed INFO: Installing built package(s) INFO: Install command returned error code 30 INFO: Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Package basesystem-11-14.fc37.noarch contains no files Package glibc-minimal-langpack-2.35.9000-31.fc37.x86_64 contains no files
d) Can net.http and net.websocket be built as sub packages so that openssl is not required for the main build?
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=2042701
--- Comment #11 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- 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/ - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/doc/v/LICENSE See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files - 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. Note: License file LICENSE is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [ ]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [ ]: 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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic: [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/2042701-v/licensecheck.txt [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/v, /usr/share/doc/v, /usr/share/v/examples, /usr/share/v/tutorials [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/v, /usr/share/doc/v, /usr/share/v/examples, /usr/share/v/tutorials [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: 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: Documentation size is 194560 bytes in 5 files. [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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]: 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: [!]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. Note: Incorrect Requires : /usr/local/bin/v See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_file_and_directory_dependencies [ ]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. Note: Package contains font files [ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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]: 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. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_use_rpmlint [!]: 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) [ ]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1955840 bytes in /usr/share
Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 3.5 starting (python version = 3.11.0, NVR = mock-3.5-1.fc38)... Start(bootstrap): init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish(bootstrap): init plugins Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins INFO: Signal handler active Start: run Start(bootstrap): chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled package manager cache Start(bootstrap): cleaning package manager metadata Finish(bootstrap): cleaning package manager metadata INFO: enabled HW Info plugin Mock Version: 3.5 INFO: Mock Version: 3.5 Finish(bootstrap): chroot init Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled package manager cache Start: cleaning package manager metadata Finish: cleaning package manager metadata INFO: enabled HW Info plugin Mock Version: 3.5 INFO: Mock Version: 3.5 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /builddir/v-0.3-1.fc38.aarch64.rpm ERROR: Command failed: # /usr/bin/systemd-nspawn -q -M 4034544450be485bbd2428d8be85b512 -D /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-aarch64-bootstrap/root -a --capability=cap_ipc_lock --bind=/tmp/mock-resolv.kc8ki3n5:/etc/resolv.conf --console=pipe --setenv=TERM=vt100 --setenv=SHELL=/bin/bash --setenv=HOME=/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-aarch64/root/installation-homedir --setenv=HOSTNAME=mock --setenv=PATH=/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin --setenv=PROMPT_COMMAND=printf "\033]0;<mock-chroot>\007" --setenv=PS1=<mock-chroot> \s-\v$ --setenv=LANG=C.UTF-8 --setenv=LC_MESSAGES=C.UTF-8 --resolv-conf=off /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-aarch64/root/ --releasever 38 --setopt=deltarpm=False --allowerasing --disableplugin=local --disableplugin=spacewalk --disableplugin=versionlock install /builddir/v-0.3-1.fc38.aarch64.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts
Rpmlint ------- Checking: v-0.3-1.fc38.aarch64.rpm v-0.3-1.fc38.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/tmpye90reht')] checks: 31, packages: 2
v.aarch64: E: zero-length /usr/share/v/examples/sokol/02_cubes_glsl/v.mod v.aarch64: E: zero-length /usr/share/v/examples/sokol/03_march_tracing_glsl/v.mod v.aarch64: E: zero-length /usr/share/v/examples/sokol/04_multi_shader_glsl/v.mod v.aarch64: E: zero-length /usr/share/v/examples/sokol/05_instancing_glsl/v.mod v.aarch64: E: zero-length /usr/share/v/examples/sokol/06_obj_viewer/v.mod v.aarch64: E: zero-length /usr/share/v/examples/sokol/particles/modules/particle/v.mod v.aarch64: E: zero-length /usr/share/v/examples/sokol/particles/modules/particle/vec2/v.mod v.aarch64: E: zero-length /usr/share/v/examples/sokol/simple_shader_glsl/v.mod v.aarch64: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/v/examples/v_script.vsh /usr/local/bin/v v.aarch64: E: version-control-internal-file /usr/share/v/examples/2048/.gitignore v.aarch64: E: version-control-internal-file /usr/share/v/examples/database/psql/.gitignore v.aarch64: E: version-control-internal-file /usr/share/v/examples/flappylearning/.gitignore v.aarch64: E: version-control-internal-file /usr/share/v/examples/hot_reload/.gitignore v.aarch64: E: version-control-internal-file /usr/share/v/examples/pendulum-simulation/.gitignore v.aarch64: E: version-control-internal-file /usr/share/v/examples/sokol/simple_shader_glsl/.gitignore v.aarch64: E: version-control-internal-file /usr/share/v/tutorials/building_a_simple_web_blog_with_vweb/code/blog/.gitignore v.aarch64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/v v.aarch64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary v v.spec: W: no-%prep-section v.aarch64: W: name-repeated-in-summary V v.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary V v.aarch64: E: invalid-dependency /usr/local/bin/v v.aarch64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.3 ['0.3-1.fc38', '0.3-1'] v.aarch64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/v/examples/process/.ignore v.aarch64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/v/examples/vweb/vweb_assets/assets/v-logo.svg /usr/share/v/examples/vweb/server_sent_events/assets/v-logo.svg v.aarch64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/v/examples/vweb/vweb_assets/favicon.ico /usr/share/v/examples/vweb/server_sent_events/favicon.ico v.aarch64: E: devel-dependency openssl-devel 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 18 errors, 9 warnings, 18 badness; has taken 2.0 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://raw.githubusercontent.com/vlang/vc/1521ffb810f89d247113a1f3381b17681... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3d1fce37f0230f0b8b4a33acf8767061201457331a60620e9f4bec9ae6bd7686 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3d1fce37f0230f0b8b4a33acf8767061201457331a60620e9f4bec9ae6bd7686 https://github.com/vlang/v/archive/refs/tags/0.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 49cfe3bba0408bdc2394b63db927d586239aa18c2d8b4fea90f087ba26da0bac CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 49cfe3bba0408bdc2394b63db927d586239aa18c2d8b4fea90f087ba26da0bac
Requires -------- v (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/local/bin/v ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(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) openssl-devel rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides -------- v: v v(aarch-64)
Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/fedora/2042701-v/srpm/v.spec 2022-12-07 22:09:38.201213039 +0000 +++ /home/fedora/2042701-v/srpm-unpacked/v.spec 2022-07-14 15:22:43.000000000 +0000 @@ -18,5 +18,4 @@ Source0: https://github.com/vlang/v/archive/refs/tags/%%7Brelease_build%7D.tar.gz
-# V compiler's source translated to C Source1: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/vlang/vc/1521ffb810f89d247113a1f3381b17681...
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2042701 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Haskell, Java, PHP, Python, SugarActivity, fonts, Ruby, R, Perl Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2042701
Ali Yousefi Sabzevar aysabzevar@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed| |2024-01-03 12:06:26
Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review
Ali Yousefi Sabzevar aysabzevar@gmail.com has canceled Package Review package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org's request for needinfo: Bug 2042701: Review Request: v - The v programming language https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2042701
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com