https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1901665 Raphael Groner <projects.rg(a)smart.ms&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |projects.rg(a)smart.ms Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value -- 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=1901665 --- Comment #1 from Andy Mender <andymenderunix(a)gmail.com&gt; --- First, big thanks for bringing this package to Fedora! :) Any indication why they are failing? Could you add an extra comment explaining that? The config file should be marked as "noreplace", otherwise it will get overwritten on package reinstalls and updates: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_configuration... If the target is ARM 32-bit, is the if-clause needed and would it still work if you used %{_libdir} (the preferred macro) instead? Also, I think you can catch the libstdc++ SO files with a tailing '*' at the end, instead of the digits. "/usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu" seems like a Debian/Ubuntu libdir. Is there any way to convert it to a Fedora-compatible path or put the packaged SO files into a box86-specific dir in /usr/lib and let cmake link against these? Extra items in the review below: 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/ ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed Review: Not sure about this. The full gnulib is NOT bundled, just 3 SO files. [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: 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: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu Review: As mentioned before, this is not a standard Fedora dir. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu, /etc/binfmt.d Review: Same here. [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. [!]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. Note: No (noreplace) in %config /etc/binfmt.d/box86.conf [-]: 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. [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 3 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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]: 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]: No %config files under /usr. [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: [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). [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. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. Review: Yes, but tests fail. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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 [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 2.6 starting (python version = 3.8.6)... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins INFO: Signal handler active Start: run 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: 2.6 INFO: Mock Version: 2.6 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /data/rpmbuild/SPECS/box86/box86-debugsource-0.1.4-1.fc34.armv7hl.rpm /data/rpmbuild/SPECS/box86/box86-debuginfo-0.1.4-1.fc34.armv7hl.rpm /data/rpmbuild/SPECS/box86/box86-0.1.4-1.fc34.armv7hl.rpm ERROR: Command failed: # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 34 --setopt=deltarpm=False --allowerasing --disableplugin=local --disableplugin=spacewalk install /data/rpmbuild/SPECS/box86/box86-debugsource-0.1.4-1.fc34.armv7hl.rpm /data/rpmbuild/SPECS/box86/box86-debuginfo-0.1.4-1.fc34.armv7hl.rpm /data/rpmbuild/SPECS/box86/box86-0.1.4-1.fc34.armv7hl.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts Rpmlint ------- Checking: box86-0.1.4-1.fc34.armv7hl.rpm box86-debuginfo-0.1.4-1.fc34.armv7hl.rpm box86-debugsource-0.1.4-1.fc34.armv7hl.rpm box86-0.1.4-1.fc31.src.rpm box86.armv7hl: W: executable-stack /usr/bin/box86 box86.armv7hl: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/binfmt.d/box86.conf box86.armv7hl: W: no-manual-page-for-binary box86 box86.src:56: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/i386-linux-gnu/libgcc_s.so.1 box86.src:57: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/i386-linux-gnu/libstdc++.so.5 box86.src:58: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/i386-linux-gnu/libstdc++.so.6 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 3 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/ptitSeb/box86/archive/v0.1.4/box86-0.1.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : be4a026310c90ff0171d13bd492fc8a3e7f84e3f494eb2cdf0f96d1566f3a1bc CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : be4a026310c90ff0171d13bd492fc8a3e7f84e3f494eb2cdf0f96d1566f3a1bc Requires -------- box86 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): config(box86) ld-linux-armhf.so.3 libc.so.6 libdl.so.2 libgcc_s.so.1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.5) libm.so.6 libpthread.so.0 librt.so.1 rtld(GNU_HASH) box86-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): box86-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- box86: box86 box86(armv7hl-32) config(box86) box86-debuginfo: box86-debuginfo box86-debuginfo(armv7hl-32) debuginfo(build-id) box86-debugsource: box86-debugsource box86-debugsource(armv7hl-32) -- 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=1901665 Andy Mender <andymenderunix(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(kwizart(a)gmail.com | |) --- Comment #3 from Andy Mender <andymenderunix(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Hello, any updates on this? :) I saw the duplicate bug request was closed. -- 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=1901665 --- Comment #5 from Raphael Groner <projects.rg(a)smart.ms&gt; --- Though, I'd try to build on all possible architectures anyways without caring about usefulness. Fedora policy suggests to hardly try to avoid any excluded architecture if the package successfully builds there somehow. "Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line." https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_architecture_... -- 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=1901665 --- Comment #7 from Raphael Groner <projects.rg(a)smart.ms&gt; --- Official support for emulation of x86 (32 bits) only is poor but more than nothing. What about aarch64 then? -- 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=1901665 --- Comment #9 from Raphael Groner <projects.rg(a)smart.ms&gt; --- Propably answers at (virtual) FOSDEM stand: https://stands.fosdem.org/stands/box86/main/ -- 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=1901665 Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) <kwizart(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(kwizart(a)gmail.com | |) | --- Comment #11 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) <kwizart(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Packaging is clean on the packaging wide.IMO. Only usability is to be proven. See next. I only expect to build a dedicated chroot with x86 libraries and libstdc++ replaced by box86... This runtime test need to be proven for the package to be usable at all. -- 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=1901665 --- Comment #13 from Raphael Groner <projects.rg(a)smart.ms&gt; --- Well, there's now also box64 for emulation with 64 bits but both box86 (with 32 bits) and box64 are incompatible. Someone should create another request for box64. -- 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=1901665