[Bug 1135654] Review Request: libpuma - Library for parsing and manipulating C/C++ source code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135654 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||libpuma-1.2-3.fc21 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2014-11-01 12:32:37 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- libpuma-1.2-3.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 1135654] Review Request: libpuma - Library for parsing and manipulating C/C++ source code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135654 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- libpuma-1.2-3.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 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 1135654] Review Request: libpuma - Library for parsing and manipulating C/C++ source code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135654 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |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 1135654] Review Request: libpuma - Library for parsing and manipulating C/C++ source code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135654 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- libpuma-1.2-2.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 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 1135654] Review Request: libpuma - Library for parsing and manipulating C/C++ source code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135654 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 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 1135654] Review Request: libpuma - Library for parsing and manipulating C/C++ source code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135654 --- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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 1135654] Review Request: libpuma - Library for parsing and manipulating C/C++ source code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135654 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- libpuma-1.2-2.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libpuma-1.2-2.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 1135654] Review Request: libpuma - Library for parsing and manipulating C/C++ source code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135654 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 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 1135654] Review Request: libpuma - Library for parsing and manipulating C/C++ source code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135654 --- Comment #10 from Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com --- Thank you very much for the review, Tim. If the FTP site isn't back up by the time I import this package, I will change the source URL to the HTTP 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 1135654] Review Request: libpuma - Library for parsing and manipulating C/C++ source code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135654 Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #11 from Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: libpuma Short Description: Library for parsing and manipulating C/C++ source code Upstream URL: http://aspectc.org/ Owners: jjames Branches: f21 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 1135654] Review Request: libpuma - Library for parsing and manipulating C/C++ source code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135654
--- Comment #8 from Tim Lauridsen t...@rasmil.dk ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: libpuma-doc : /usr/share/doc/libpuma-
doc/examples/annotator/Transformer.h libpuma-doc : /usr/share/doc/libpuma-
doc/examples/ccparser/IncludeVisitor.h libpuma-doc : /usr/share/doc/libpuma-
doc/examples/sync/SyncBuilder.h libpuma-doc : /usr/share/doc/libpuma-
doc/examples/sync/SyncKeywordRecognizer.h libpuma-doc : /usr/share/doc
/libpuma-doc/examples/sync/SyncParser.h libpuma-doc : /usr/share/doc
/libpuma-doc/examples/sync/SyncSemantic.h libpuma-doc : /usr/share/doc
/libpuma-doc/examples/sync/SyncSyntax.h libpuma-doc : /usr/share/doc
/libpuma-doc/examples/sync/SyncTokens.h libpuma-doc : /usr/share/doc
/libpuma-doc/examples/sync/SyncTransformer.h libpuma-doc : /usr/share/doc
/libpuma-doc/examples/sync/SyncTree.h
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages
- 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 %doc.
Note: Cannot find COPYING in rpm(s)
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
OK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/411
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
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.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address), LGPL (v2 or later)
(with incorrect FSF address), Unknown or generated, GPL (v3 or
later). 790 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck
in /home/tim/udv/reviews/1135654-libpuma/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/licenses
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/licenses
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not
[Bug 1135654] Review Request: libpuma - Library for parsing and manipulating C/C++ source code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135654 Tim Lauridsen t...@rasmil.dk changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #9 from Tim Lauridsen t...@rasmil.dk --- Only issues is there source cant be checked on the spec Source URL got source from http://aspectc.org/releases/1.2/ac-woven-1.2.tar.gz 174aa5f552edaff8b1335fe6b1adfff0eb9d170076401ab6bcf7f85a5edee8b4 ac-woven-1.2.tar.gz 174aa5f552edaff8b1335fe6b1adfff0eb9d170076401ab6bcf7f85a5edee8b4 1135654-libpuma/srpm-unpacked/ac-woven-1.2.tar.gz [x] Source match upstream APPROVED -- 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 1135654] Review Request: libpuma - Library for parsing and manipulating C/C++ source code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135654 Tim Lauridsen t...@rasmil.dk changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||t...@rasmil.dk Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|t...@rasmil.dk Flags||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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1135654] Review Request: libpuma - Library for parsing and manipulating C/C++ source code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135654 --- Comment #6 from Tim Lauridsen t...@rasmil.dk --- Initial comments. Looks like the Source0 url is broken http://aspectc.org/releases/1.2/ac-woven-1.2.tar.gz is working but the ftp address is not working a little unsure about %license aspectc++/Puma/COPYING in %files, the Fedora talk about license files should go in %doc, but I might have missed something. -- 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 1135654] Review Request: libpuma - Library for parsing and manipulating C/C++ source code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135654 --- Comment #7 from Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Tim Lauridsen from comment #6) Initial comments. Looks like the Source0 url is broken http://aspectc.org/releases/1.2/ac-woven-1.2.tar.gz is working but the ftp address is not working Yes, aspectc.org suffered some kind of site failure just a few days ago. I haven't heard the details, but they've been putting stuff back together. If the ftp site doesn't come back soon, I will switch the URL to the HTTP version you gave. a little unsure about %license aspectc++/Puma/COPYING in %files, the Fedora talk about license files should go in %doc, but I might have missed something. See https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/411. -- 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 1135654] Review Request: libpuma - Library for parsing and manipulating C/C++ source code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135654
--- Comment #4 from Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #3)
It is not just inconvenient to hardcode such a dependency in a Documentation
package, so the package cannot be installed without pulling in lots of
dependencies. Please keep doc packages free of such deps unless the base app
is strictly required to display the doc files.
Okay, I have removed this dependency.
Here %{?_isa} would make sense. The generated .config file (_not_ in libpuma
package btw) seems arch-specific, subpackage -aspectc++ (which is not
multi-lib) requires arch-specific libpuma, so libpuma ought to require the
arch-specific compiler, too.
No, see bug 831383. I have instead added arch-specific dependencies on
libstdc++-devel and glibc-devel. (The dependency on libgcc isn't needed,
because that comes via libstdc++-devel - libstdc++ - libgcc.)
The generated puma.config file is a bit more problematic. You are correct that
it should be in the main package rather than in the aspectc++ subpackage. But
that breaks multilib, since the 32-bit and 64-bit versions of that file will
differ. I don't think that file should be in %{_sysconfdir} anyway. It isn't
intended to be edited by humans. I have moved it to %{_libdir}/libpuma
instead, which will work with multilib. Does that sound reasonable?
Nasty trap. ;)
Seeing this I wondered about the license file, and indeed you modify the
license file which must not be done:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address
I've had reviewers of other packages insist that I fix the address, so this was
a preemptive strike to avoid taking flak from the reviewer of this package.
That didn't work out so well. :-) I'm going to remove the address changing
code, and just complain to upstream about it. It looks like upstream is
currently recovering from some kind of website breakage, and their bugzilla is
offline. It may take a few days to alert them to the problem.
Thanks for the feedback! New URLs:
Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/libpuma/libpuma.spec
SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/libpuma/libpuma-1.2-2.fc22.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 1135654] Review Request: libpuma - Library for parsing and manipulating C/C++ source code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135654
--- Comment #5 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net ---
bug 831383
Fixed in 2012. gcc is not multilib anymore, i.e. no multilib package causes the
multilib repo composer to pull it it anymore.
# yum list gcc
Loaded plugins: auto-update-debuginfo, langpacks
Installed Packages
gcc.x86_644.9.1-11.fc21
@updates-testing
Of course, that also means %{?_isa} doesn't add any benefit, since there is
only once gcc package to choose. ;-)
--
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 1135654] Review Request: libpuma - Library for parsing and manipulating C/C++ source code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135654
--- Comment #3 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net ---
%package doc
Summary:Documentation for %{name}
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
BuildArch: noarch
It is not just inconvenient to hardcode such a dependency in a Documentation
package, so the package cannot be installed without pulling in lots of
dependencies. Please keep doc packages free of such deps unless the base app is
strictly required to display the doc files.
A noarch subpackage _cannot_ depend on %{?_isa}, because it may be built on
any arch and is put into all repos for different archs.
Name: libpuma
# The generated config depends on a specific version of gcc/g++
Requires: gcc-c++ = %{gccver}
Here %{?_isa} would make sense. The generated .config file (_not_ in libpuma
package btw) seems arch-specific, subpackage -aspectc++ (which is not
multi-lib) requires arch-specific libpuma, so libpuma ought to require the
arch-specific compiler, too.
# Fix the FSF's address
for f in $(grep -FRl 'Temple Place' .); do
...
touch -r $f.orig $f
...
Nasty trap. ;)
Seeing this I wondered about the license file, and indeed you modify the
license file which must not be done:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address
--
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 1135654] Review Request: libpuma - Library for parsing and manipulating C/C++ source code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135654 Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Assignee|i...@cicku.me |nob...@fedoraproject.org Flags|fedora-review? | --- Comment #2 from Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com --- In accordance with the policy for stalled reviews, where the reviewer is not responding, I note that there was no action from the reviewer for one month prior to Comment 1, and that more than a week has passed since, still with no action and no communication from the reviewer. Therefore, I am invoking http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_maintainer_policy#Reviewer_not_responding This review has been reset to the unassigned state. -- 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 1135654] Review Request: libpuma - Library for parsing and manipulating C/C++ source code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135654 --- Comment #1 from Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com --- This review has now been assigned for over a month with no action. Will you be able to start the review in the next week? If not, please release 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 1135654] Review Request: libpuma - Library for parsing and manipulating C/C++ source code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135654 Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||i...@cicku.me Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|i...@cicku.me Flags||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 ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
