https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2035222 --- Comment #1 from dm4(a)secondstate.io --- Sorry for the late response. We've successfully built WasmEdge SRPM on koji. Koji task: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=87389689 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2035222

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2035222 --- Comment #3 from Lokesh Mandvekar <lsm5(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Getting to this just now. The Spec and SRPM URL are no longer available. Could you please post the latest URLs in the same format as in the original description? -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2035222

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2035222 --- Comment #5 from Lokesh Mandvekar <lsm5(a)redhat.com&gt; --- (In reply to dm4 from comment #4) Hi dm4, I tried running the fedora-review tool on this bz just now and it won't take a `wasmedge.spec.in`. Could you please post a URL to wasmedge.spec as in the original description along with an srpm generated from it? Thanks -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2035222

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2035222 Lokesh Mandvekar <lsm5(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(hydai@secondstate | |.io) --- Comment #7 from Lokesh Mandvekar <lsm5(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Also, FYI, the final package creation request (after successful review) should come from @hydai(a)secondstate.io otherwise the request will be rejected. Once the package has been created, we can have multiple co-maintainers added to the package, but the original request should come from the person who filed the bug. dm4, if you plan to take this forward, I suggest continuing this on a new bug and closing this one. -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2035222

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2035222 --- Comment #9 from dm4(a)secondstate.io --- (In reply to Lokesh Mandvekar from comment #6) Thanks for the suggestion! We'll update the spec file in the next release. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2035222

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2035222 --- Comment #11 from dm4(a)secondstate.io --- Spec URL: https://github.com/WasmEdge/WasmEdge/releases/download/0.10.0/WasmEdge-0.... SRPM URL: https://github.com/WasmEdge/WasmEdge/releases/download/0.10.0/WasmEdge-0.... Description: High performance WebAssembly Virtual Machine Fedora Account System Username: dm4 -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2035222

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2035222 --- Comment #13 from Lokesh Mandvekar <lsm5(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Auto-generated with fedora-review. Manual review will follow later.. 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 - Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. Note: WasmEdge-0.10.0.spec should be wasmedge.spec See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_spec_file_naming ===== 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]: 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: [ ]: 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. [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: %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. [ ]: 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 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]: 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. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in wasmedge-devel , wasmedge-lib [ ]: 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. [ ]: %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]: 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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Bad spec filename: /home/lsm5/fedora- review/2035222-WasmEdge-0.10.0/srpm-unpacked/wasmedge.spec See: (this test has no URL) [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. Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Unversioned so-files -------------------- wasmedge-lib: /usr/lib64/libwasmedge_c.so wasmedge-lib: /usr/lib64/wasmedge/libwasmedgePluginWasmEdgeProcess.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/WasmEdge/WasmEdge/releases/download/0.10.0/WasmEdge-0.... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2c7539573f5e78ddef4dd6f61e4edf3cf81d3a66f71ccde103c02a4173268572 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2c7539573f5e78ddef4dd6f61e4edf3cf81d3a66f71ccde103c02a4173268572 Requires -------- wasmedge (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libLLVM-14.so()(64bit) libLLVM-14.so(LLVM_14)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libfmt.so.8()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) liblldCommon.so.14()(64bit) liblldELF.so.14()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libspdlog.so.1()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.11)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.13)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) llvm rtld(GNU_HASH) wasmedge-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): wasmedge-lib (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libLLVM-14.so()(64bit) libLLVM-14.so(LLVM_14)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libfmt.so.8()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) liblldCommon.so.14()(64bit) liblldELF.so.14()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libspdlog.so.1()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.11)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.13)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) llvm rtld(GNU_HASH) wasmedge-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): wasmedge-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- wasmedge: wasmedge wasmedge(x86-64) wasmedge-devel: wasmedge-devel wasmedge-devel(x86-64) wasmedge-lib: libwasmedgePluginWasmEdgeProcess.so()(64bit) libwasmedge_c.so()(64bit) wasmedge-lib wasmedge-lib(x86-64) wasmedge-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) wasmedge-debuginfo wasmedge-debuginfo(x86-64) wasmedge-debugsource: wasmedge-debugsource wasmedge-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2035222 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Haskell, R, Perl, Java, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2035222

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2035222 Lokesh Mandvekar <lsm5(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(dm4(a)secondstate.i | |o) --- Comment #15 from Lokesh Mandvekar <lsm5(a)redhat.com&gt; --- @dm4(a)secondstate.io see inline .. (In reply to Lokesh Mandvekar from comment #13) Looking at https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_devel_packages , any unversioned shared library files should be listed in the `-devel` package, while versioned lib files are better off in the main package itself. Currently, `rpm -ql wasmedge-lib-0.10.0-1.fc37.x86_64.rpm` shows: /usr/lib64/libwasmedge_c.so /usr/lib64/wasmedge /usr/lib64/wasmedge/libwasmedgePluginWasmEdgeProcess.so Perhaps we should have versioned shared libraries with the unversioned ones as symlinks? The former could go into the main package and the latter in the -devel package. The package name should exactly match the value against the `Name:` field in the spec file. So, please use either `WasmEdge` or `wasmedge`. Once you've finalized that, please also update the name in the Summary section of this bugzilla. Once these 2 issues are sorted, I'll go ahead with the rest of the review steps manually. Thanks. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2035222

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2035222 --- Comment #17 from dm4(a)secondstate.io --- Thanks for helping us! I'll update spec file & srpm then post links here again. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2035222

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2035222 --- Comment #18 from dm4(a)secondstate.io --- Spec URL: https://github.com/WasmEdge/WasmEdge/releases/download/0.10.0/wasmedge.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/WasmEdge/WasmEdge/releases/download/0.10.0/wasmedge-0.... Description: High performance WebAssembly Virtual Machine Fedora Account System Username: dm4 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2035222

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2035222 --- Comment #20 from Lokesh Mandvekar <lsm5(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Hi dm4, thanks for the changes. I'll resume the review tomorrow but before that I got a quick question. I see you have `ExclusiveArch: x86_64 aarch64` in the spec file. Would be good to have a comment above that line with justification for not enabling all arches. If wasmedge can work for all of Fedora's supported arches, then you can just remove the `ExclusiveArch:..` line and it will build for all available arches. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2035222

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2035222 --- Comment #22 from Lokesh Mandvekar <lsm5(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Reviewing pending issues below. The ones marked [!] have been addressed in the PR at: https://github.com/WasmEdge/WasmEdge/pull/1557 Once that PR is reviewed and merged, we should be good to go. Let's continue further review on the github PR. Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. 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. [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* Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Creative Commons CC0 1.0", "BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright* BSD 3-Clause License", "MIT License", "Boost Software License 1.0", "*No copyright* Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Apache License 2.0", "Apache License 2.0". 649 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/lsm5/fedora- review/2035222-wasmedge/licensecheck.txt [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/wasmedge [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/wasmedge [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]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines ===== 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in wasmedge-devel [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. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2035222

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2035222 --- Comment #24 from Maxwell G <gotmax(a)e.email&gt; --- Maybe I'm a bit nitpicky, but I do I have a couple suggestions to improve your package. Although I'm not the reviewer, I noticed some problems and figured I'd point them out. What's the point of this? Why don't you just set `Version: 0.10.0` and use `%{version}` instead of these redundant macros? I would recommend splitting this into one `BuildRequires: PACKAGENAME` line for each dependency, preferably alphabetized. This way, the specfile and its git diffs are more readable. Please use the %cmake macros. You can consult https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/CMake/ for how to use them. You should not use globs in %files for shared directories[1]. [1]: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_explicit_lists Please take a look at https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_downstream_so.... The way you've versioned the .so does not look correct to me. The devel subpackage should depend on the base package. Take a look at https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_requiring_bas.... Once you do this, you can remove the duplicated `%license` and `%doc` lines from the devel subpackage. You must include a licensing breakdown, as per https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidel.... -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2035222

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2035222 --- Comment #26 from dm4(a)secondstate.io --- Appreciate your advice to help us improve our spec file. We use `gittag` and `srpm_version` variables because we'll try to build SPRM on CI each commit. We'll generate version number like `0.10.0-61-gc82da352` each commit using `git describe --match "[0-9].[0-9]*" --tag`. Because `-` is not a valid character for version in spec file, we'll replace `-` with `~` in `gittag` and set `srpm_version`. This is why we use `gittag` and `srpm_version` variables. Thanks for your advice! We'll update our spec file in the following PR: https://github.com/WasmEdge/WasmEdge/pull/1578 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2035222

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2035222 --- Comment #28 from Gwyn Ciesla <gwync(a)protonmail.com&gt; --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/wasmedge -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2035222

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2035222 --- Comment #30 from dm4(a)secondstate.io --- (In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #29) Thanks for your advice. We'll develop .spec file at Fedora’s repository once our package is imported. -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2035222

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2035222 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2022-08-01 16:07:26 --- Comment #32 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2022-5b14464426 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2035222