https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1766157 Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |crobinso(a)redhat.com, | |jmoyer(a)redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Applications using the new Linux io_uring system call API use liburing for the userspace ring setup and I/O submission/completion. liburing 0.2 was recently released and is now in a shape where it can be consumed by applications in Fedora. QEMU is close to merging io_uring support and depends on liburing. Therefore I am proposing this package. -- 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=1766157 Cole Robinson <crobinso(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(stefanha(a)redhat.c | |om) --- Comment #2 from Cole Robinson <crobinso(a)redhat.com&gt; --- The package doesn't build in 'mock' because it's missing BuildRequires: gcc. Do 'mock liburing-0.2-1.src.rpm' to reproduce, there may be other missing build deps. * Release should be Release: 1%{?dist} so the .fcXX bits get appended to the version string * Source: should be a pointer to the upstream URL that hosts the release. In this case I think it should be https://github.com/axboe/liburing/archive/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz#%{nam... , the ending weirdness is due to github renaming the archive strangely. You might need to pass '-n %{name}-%{name}-%{version}' to %setup/%autosetup to tell it what the extracted archive name is * The %defattr lines should be removed: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/77 * The Group: lines should be removed * All the BuildRoot and RPM_BUILD_ROOT lines should be removed. %clean should be removed * The ./configure line should be replaced with just %configure * The 'make' call should be %make_build * The 'make install' call should be %make_install * The %pre and %post sections can be entirely removed, ldconfig is done automatically: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Removing_ldconfig_scriptlets * The devel package 'Requires: liburing' should instead be: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} * The devel package should also have Requires: pkgconfig * I think all the %attr usage can be entirely removed, unless they are doing something that the build system isn't doing. * The Provides: liburing.so.1 shouldn't be necessary, I'm pretty sure RPM automatically adds annotations like this * Replace %setup with %autosetup, which will automatically apply any listed Patch: in the spec if anything is backported in the future. It's a small maintenace optimization -- 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=1766157 Jeff Moyer <jmoyer(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(stefanha(a)redhat.c | |om) | --- Comment #4 from Jeff Moyer <jmoyer(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Stefan, I hope you don't mind, but I went ahead and made all of the changes requested: (In reply to Cole Robinson from comment #2) All done. Unfortunately, this configure script only supports the 4 options used in the spec file I'm linking to below, so I had to continue to call ./configure by hand. I double checked, and the build system takes care of installing with the correct permissions. I removed the line, and this is what I see: $ rpm -qp --provides RPMS/x86_64/liburing-0.2-1.el8.x86_64.rpm liburing = 0.2-1.el8 liburing(x86-64) = 0.2-1.el8 liburing.so.1()(64bit) liburing.so.1(LIBURING_0.1)(64bit) liburing.so.1(LIBURING_0.2)(64bit) so confirmed. Done. All good feedback, thanks! (In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #3) Noted. Here's the updated URL line, based on those guidelines: URL: https://github.com/axboe/liburing/archive/%{name}-%{version}/%{name}-%{ve... The tag is "liburing-0.2", which means that the tarball is named "liburing-liburing-0.2.tar.gz". That's unfortunate, but as Cole noted, we can just pass that name to %autosetup. You can find the resulting spec file and package here: http://people.redhat.com/jmoyer/liburing/liburing.spec http://people.redhat.com/jmoyer/liburing/liburing-0.2-1.el8.src.rpm Thanks again for the feedback! -Jeff -- 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=1766157 --- Comment #6 from Jeff Moyer <jmoyer(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Ah, Jens hosts release tarballs here: http://brick.kernel.dk/snaps/ So we can get rid of the liburing-liburing-<ver>.tar.gz nonsense. \o/ -- 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=1766157 Cole Robinson <crobinso(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(stefanha(a)redhat.c | |om) --- Comment #8 from Cole Robinson <crobinso(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Since %configure can't be used, I think you'll want to do %set_build_flags ./configure ... That's what the %configure macro does essentially. See rpm --eval "%configure" or the macro definition in /usr/lib/rpm/macros Things flagged by fedora-review: * Use '%license COPYING' instead of %doc * The package ships .a static libraries. Are these required? If not they should be removed. I think typically ./configure scripts will have a way to opt in to building these, but just rm'ing them before %make_install is probably sufficient, or using %exclude. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#packaging-stat... * Source: should be the full URL format that URL: has. URL: should point to the webpage for the project, or git repo if it doesn't have one. * The devel package dep needs to be tweaked to: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} I think that's it -- 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=1766157 Cole Robinson <crobinso(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ |needinfo?(stefanha(a)redhat.c | |om) | |needinfo?(crobinso(a)redhat.c | |om) | --- Comment #10 from Cole Robinson <crobinso(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Looks good, setting fedora-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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1766157 Cole Robinson <crobinso(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed| |2020-04-07 18:38:28 --- Comment #12 from Cole Robinson <crobinso(a)redhat.com&gt; --- This has been built for f31+ -- 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