[Bug 1091659] Review Request: iwyu - #include analysis tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091659 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|iwyu-0.2-1.el6 |iwyu-0.2-1.el7 --- Comment #40 from Fedora Update System --- iwyu-0.2-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1091659] Review Request: iwyu - #include analysis tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091659 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|iwyu-0.3-1.fc21 |iwyu-0.2-1.el6 --- Comment #39 from Fedora Update System --- iwyu-0.2-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1091659] Review Request: iwyu - #include analysis tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091659 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|iwyu-0.2-1.fc20 |iwyu-0.3-1.fc21 --- Comment #38 from Fedora Update System --- iwyu-0.3-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1091659] Review Request: iwyu - #include analysis tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091659 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||iwyu-0.2-1.fc20 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2015-02-27 04:23:16 --- Comment #37 from Fedora Update System --- iwyu-0.2-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1091659] Review Request: iwyu - #include analysis tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091659 --- Comment #36 from Dave Johansen --- Ok, I made it ExclusiveArch. Thanks for the feedback. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1091659] Review Request: iwyu - #include analysis tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091659
Jakub Čajka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jca...@redhat.com
--- Comment #35 from Jakub Čajka ---
Hello, package seems to fail to pass multiple tests on all non Intel
architectures(for example due to use of x86 in-line assembly in one test).
s390(x):
http://s390.koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=301751
ppc64(le):
http://ppc.koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=294450
aarch64:
http://arm.koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=260770
It seems that upstream don't support any other platform than Intel. It would be
best to make this package "ExclusiveArch: %{ix86} x86_64".
--
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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1091659] Review Request: iwyu - #include analysis tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091659 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #34 from Fedora Update System --- iwyu-0.2-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1091659] Review Request: iwyu - #include analysis tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091659 --- Comment #31 from Fedora Update System --- iwyu-0.3-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/iwyu-0.3-1.fc21 -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1091659] Review Request: iwyu - #include analysis tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091659 --- Comment #30 from Fedora Update System --- iwyu-0.2-1.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/iwyu-0.2-1.el7 -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1091659] Review Request: iwyu - #include analysis tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091659 --- Comment #33 from Fedora Update System --- iwyu-0.2-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/iwyu-0.2-1.fc20 -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1091659] Review Request: iwyu - #include analysis tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091659 --- Comment #32 from Fedora Update System --- iwyu-0.2-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/iwyu-0.2-1.el6 -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1091659] Review Request: iwyu - #include analysis tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091659 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1091659] Review Request: iwyu - #include analysis tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091659 --- Comment #29 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). Added f22 since we've branched. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1091659] Review Request: iwyu - #include analysis tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091659 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1091659] Review Request: iwyu - #include analysis tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091659 Dave Johansen changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #28 from Dave Johansen --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: iwyu Short Description: C/C++ source files #include analyzer based on clang Upstream URL: https://code.google.com/p/include-what-you-use/ Owners: daveisfera Branches: f20 f21 el6 epel7 InitialCC: -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1091659] Review Request: iwyu - #include analysis tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091659 --- Comment #27 from Dave Johansen --- In response to comment 24, I appreciate the feedback and I think automated checks are great, so I will add the "grep check" to make sure the sed doesn't silently fail. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1091659] Review Request: iwyu - #include analysis tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091659 --- Comment #26 from Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) --- This is _not_ about forcing people. It is about trying to give hints and general guidance beyond following existing guidelines. "People" are free to ignore such advice. It is my experience that patch is safer than sed without guards, and it would not be the first time a packager is bitten by a failing sed match. A worst-case example is a lazy sed subst that fails to replace something that enters the built executables "silently" without making the build fail (e.g. paths, config changes). So, guards are a good thing. Add them where you see the benefit. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1091659] Review Request: iwyu - #include analysis tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091659 --- Comment #25 from Christopher Meng --- (In reply to Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) from comment #24) > However: > > Generally, when using sed substitutions, it is a good recommendation to add > guards to the spec file, which protect against sed failing to match. Either > before or after running sed. While applying a patch file would error out, if > it doesn't apply anymore, a failing sed match would cause the substitution > not to be applied. In this particular case, if the script contained anything > different from '#!/usr/bin/python\b' in line 1, e.g. /usr/bin/env something, > it would not be substituted. A guard would run "grep" on the file and ensure > that the sed match will be successful, e.g. an explicit "grep -m 1 > '^#!/usr/bin/python\b' || exit -1" would add safety for this particular case. I personally don't force people doing this since I believe people check the package in every update. But as you've said, it's worse to see the stillness when the hack doesn't work. So Dave here is your choice. This package is approved now. Feel free to request SCM. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1091659] Review Request: iwyu - #include analysis tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091659
--- Comment #24 from Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group)
---
FWIW, note that sed substitutions would fail without causing an error.
I would not worry much about inserting an unexpanded '#!%{__python2})' into the
script, because that would break the shebang and result in an unresolvable
auto-dependency in the package. It would only be bad, if nobody would notice
that in the built packages. And if %__python2 were undefined, the %check
section would fail as it also uses %__python.
However:
Generally, when using sed substitutions, it is a good recommendation to add
guards to the spec file, which protect against sed failing to match. Either
before or after running sed. While applying a patch file would error out, if it
doesn't apply anymore, a failing sed match would cause the substitution not to
be applied. In this particular case, if the script contained anything different
from '#!/usr/bin/python\b' in line 1, e.g. /usr/bin/env something, it would not
be substituted. A guard would run "grep" on the file and ensure that the sed
match will be successful, e.g. an explicit "grep -m 1 '^#!/usr/bin/python\b' ||
exit -1" would add safety for this particular case.
--
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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1091659] Review Request: iwyu - #include analysis tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091659 --- Comment #23 from Dave Johansen --- > I think you should consult with upstream first. We should avoid using epoch > tag in > the SPEC if it's packaged with wrong version. Upstream said that the version is 0.3 ( see https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/include-what-you-use/dpVkAtWDyPM ) and that's what "iywu --version" outputs, so I'll run with that. > Did you check that the macro is correctly expanded by sed? Yes, the macro is correctly expanded. I believe that's all of the issues that have been brought up so far. The updated .spec and source .rpm can be found at: https://daveisfera.fedorapeople.org/iwyu_0.3/iwyu.spec https://daveisfera.fedorapeople.org/iwyu_0.3/iwyu-0.3-1.fc21.src.rpm -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1091659] Review Request: iwyu - #include analysis tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091659
--- Comment #22 from Pierre-YvesChibon ---
> sed -i '1 s|^#!/usr/bin/python\b|#!%{__python2}|' fix_includes.py
Did you check that the macro is correctly expanded by sed?
(ie: that the file has #!/usr/bin/python2 and no directly #!%{__python2})
--
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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1091659] Review Request: iwyu - #include analysis tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091659
--- Comment #21 from Christopher Meng ---
(In reply to Dave Johansen from comment #20)
> Additional Question:
> Currently, the version is set to 3.5 because that's what the tarball is
> called, but when you run "iwyu --version" it says 0.3 and I believe that's
> probably the more correct value. But when I change it, %setup chokes on the
> filename of the tar. Is there a way that I can get %setup to untar the file
> properly when I set the Version tag to 0.3?
"%setup -q" expanded as "%setup -q -n %{name}-%{version}", if you want to
specify the version in the top-level dir of the tarball, just change it to
%global real_version 0.3
%setup -q -n %{name}-%{real_version}
I checked the upstream yesterday, while they said the version is 0.3, their
tarball still contains 3.5. It's a bit confusing, but they might use 3.5 to
ease the pain of choosing the right version to use with different LLVM.
I think you should consult with upstream first. We should avoid using epoch tag
in the SPEC if it's packaged with wrong version.
--
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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1091659] Review Request: iwyu - #include analysis tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091659
--- Comment #20 from Dave Johansen ---
In reply to comment #18:
> 1. Install cleanup.
Fixed.
> 2a. Specify Python 2 in script
The sed gave the following error:
sed: -e expression #1, char 32: unknown option to `s'
So I used this instead:
sed -i '1 s|^#!/usr/bin/python\b|#!%{__python2}|' fix_includes.py
> 2b. BR python2-devel.
Fixed.
> 3. Drop Group tag.
Fixed.
> 4. use %{__python2} instead of directly executing.
Fixed
> 5. Consider virtual provides of that obtuse name:
Fixed
> 6. manpage can be ignored since help has been written into the python
> executables.
Agreed, because there's no manpage in the upstream source.
The updated .spec and source .rpm can be found at the URLs listed in comment 15
with the fixes above.
Additional Question:
Currently, the version is set to 3.5 because that's what the tarball is called,
but when you run "iwyu --version" it says 0.3 and I believe that's probably the
more correct value. But when I change it, %setup chokes on the filename of the
tar. Is there a way that I can get %setup to untar the file properly when I set
the Version tag to 0.3?
--
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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1091659] Review Request: iwyu - #include analysis tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091659
Pierre-YvesChibon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pin...@pingoured.fr
--- Comment #19 from Pierre-YvesChibon ---
the use of the %{_ptyhon2} macro is strongly encouraged if not mandatory in the
guidelines now (especially with the python3 as default around the corner).
For the manpage, if there is one I am in favor of including it, there is no
point in excluding some documentation if upstream provides 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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1091659] Review Request: iwyu - #include analysis tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091659
Christopher Meng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #18 from Christopher Meng ---
Based on my previous review and static linking approval, this package should be
approved as well. However I still give you some suggestions for this and hope
you can fix these:
1.
- cd build
- make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}
- cp ../fix_includes.py %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/fix_includes
+ %make_install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} -C build
+ install -pDm755 fix_includes.py %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/fix_includes
Use install -m will make sure its permission is correct.
2. Processing files: iwyu-3.5-1.fc22.i686
Provides: iwyu = 3.5-1.fc22 iwyu(x86-32) = 3.5-1.fc22
Requires(rpmlib): rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <=
4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
Requires: /usr/bin/python libc.so.6 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.11) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.15)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.3) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.6)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.7) libdl.so.2 libdl.so.2(GLIBC_2.0) libform.so.5
libgcc_s.so.1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.4)
libgcc_s.so.1(GLIBC_2.0) libm.so.6 libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) libncurses.so.5
libpthread.so.0 libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.0) libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.1)
libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.2) libstdc++.so.6 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)
libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)
libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.11) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.15)
libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.20) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.9) libtinfo.so.5
libz.so.1 libz.so.1(ZLIB_1.2.0) rtld(GNU_HASH)
Thus insert one line based on opinion 1:
%make_install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} -C build
+ sed -i '1{\@^#!/usr/bin/python@s/^.*$/%{__python2}/}' fix_includes.py
You may need BR: python2-devel because of that python2 macro, if you want it
easier, just use /usr/bin/python2, but I don't think BR python2-devel is bad,
though. This script doesn't support Python 3 certainly.
3. Drop Group tag.
4. ./run_iwyu_tests.py
./fix_includes_test.py
You'd better use %{__python2} instead of directly execute it since I don't know
the affection from Python 3 as default change in f22.
5. Consider virtual provides of that obtuse name:
Provides: include-what-you-use = %{version}-%{release}
Provides: include-what-you-use%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
6. manpage can be ignored since help has been written into the python
executables.
--
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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1091659] Review Request: iwyu - #include analysis tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091659 --- Comment #17 from Dave Johansen --- Any update on 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1091659] Review Request: iwyu - #include analysis tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091659 --- Comment #16 from Dave Johansen --- I wanted to make sure everything still worked with clang 3.4.2 on EL 6/7 and I found an issue with the check section, so the updated .spec and source .rpm can be found at: https://daveisfera.fedorapeople.org/iwyu_3.4.2/iwyu.spec https://daveisfera.fedorapeople.org/iwyu_3.4.2/iwyu-3.4-1.el7.centos.src.rpm -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1091659] Review Request: iwyu - #include analysis tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091659 --- Comment #15 from Dave Johansen --- Since F21 updated to clang 3.5, here are the files for that: https://daveisfera.fedorapeople.org/iwyu_3.5/iwyu.spec https://daveisfera.fedorapeople.org/iwyu_3.5/iwyu-3.5-1.fc21.src.rpm -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1091659] Review Request: iwyu - #include analysis tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091659 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #14 from Christopher Meng --- I will post a full review soon, then you can push 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1091659] Review Request: iwyu - #include analysis tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091659 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? | -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1091659] Review Request: iwyu - #include analysis tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091659 --- Comment #13 from Jon Ciesla --- WARNING: fedora-review flag not set -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1091659] Review Request: iwyu - #include analysis tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091659 Dave Johansen changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #12 from Dave Johansen --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: iwyu Short Description: A tool for use with clang to analyze #includes in C and C++ source files Owners: daveisfera Branches: f21 el6 epel7 InitialCC: -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1091659] Review Request: iwyu - #include analysis tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091659 --- Comment #11 from Dave Johansen --- The static linking was approved by FESCo ( https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1370#comment:6 ). -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1091659] Review Request: iwyu - #include analysis tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091659 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rdie...@math.unl.edu --- Comment #10 from Rex Dieter --- I dont think you need permission here. It is only required if you *choose* to statically link when dynamic linking is possible... which isn't the case here, right? -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1091659] Review Request: iwyu - #include analysis tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091659 --- Comment #9 from Dave Johansen --- Submitted the request with FESCo ( https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1370 ) but was then directed to FPC ( https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/477 ). -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1091659] Review Request: iwyu - #include analysis tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091659 --- Comment #8 from Dave Johansen --- It is currently not possible to build libclang as dynamic libraries ( http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/cfe-dev/2014-November/040088.html ). What do I need to do to submit a request for an exception? Thanks, Dave -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1091659] Review Request: iwyu - #include analysis tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091659 Dave Johansen changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(davejohansen@gmai | |l.com) | --- Comment #7 from Dave Johansen --- Sorry for the delayed action on this. Rather than getting approval to use the static libraries from clang, I've been working on trying to get the shared libraries built so those could be used by iwyu and other applications. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1091659] Review Request: iwyu - #include analysis tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091659 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added CC||davejohan...@gmail.com Flags||needinfo?(davejohansen@gmai ||l.com) -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1091659] Review Request: iwyu - #include analysis tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091659 --- Comment #6 from Christopher Meng --- I think you need to request a permission: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Statically_Linking_Executables -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1091659] Review Request: iwyu - #include analysis tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091659 --- Comment #5 from Dave Johansen --- I added running of the tests to the check section and fixed the description because the 3rd line was incorrectly being viewed as a comment (is there a way to escape the # other than putting it later on the line like I did?). -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1091659] Review Request: iwyu - #include analysis tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091659 --- Comment #4 from Dave Johansen --- I made those changes and updated the .spec and source rpm at the links mentioned in comment 2. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1091659] Review Request: iwyu - #include analysis tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091659
--- Comment #3 from Christopher Meng ---
1. Summary suggestion:
C/C++ source files #include analyzer based on clang
2. %{_bindir}/fix_includes.py
Maybe you can rename it to %{_bindir}/fix_includes? I think this name is
shorter :)
--
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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1091659] Review Request: iwyu - #include analysis tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091659 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|i...@cicku.me Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: iwyu - |include-what-you-use - |#include analysis tool |#include analysis tool | -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
