[Bug 1357110] Review Request: foma - Xerox-compatible finite-state compiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1357110 Mattia Verga changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed|2016-09-06 16:13:28 |2021-06-11 14:33:50 --- Comment #10 from Mattia Verga --- Package imported, closing. -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1357110] Review Request: foma - Xerox-compatible finite-state compiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1357110 --- Comment #9 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/foma -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1357110] Review Request: foma - Xerox-compatible finite-state compiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1357110 --- Comment #8 from Ville-Pekka Vainio --- SPEC: https://vpv.fedorapeople.org/packages/foma-2018/foma.spec SRPM: https://vpv.fedorapeople.org/packages/foma-2018/foma-0.9.18-0.1.20150613git0fa48db.fc29.src.rpm I used the git commit date as the snapshot date, I think it's more informative to the users of the package. Will request the git module and branches now. -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1357110] Review Request: foma - Xerox-compatible finite-state compiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1357110 --- Comment #7 from Ville-Pekka Vainio --- Thank you, Robert-André! I've had a few busy weeks, I plan on finishing the packaging next weekend. -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1357110] Review Request: foma - Xerox-compatible finite-state compiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1357110
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Since you're packaging a dev snapshot you must include the snapshot date en
Release:
%global commit0 0fa48dbacfe39509577ae6741054be7c05a19aac
%global shortcommit0 %(c=%{commit0}; echo ${c:0:7})
%global snapshotdate 20180826
%global libname libfoma
Name: foma
Version:0.9.18
Release:0.1.%{snapshotdate}git%{shortcommit0}%{?dist}
- Group: shouldn't be used in Fedora
Package otherwise approved. Please fix the above issues before import.
Package Review
==
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.
[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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[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: "Apache (v2.0)", "*No copyright* Apache (v2)", "GPL (v2)",
"Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 11 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/foma/review-foma/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 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]: 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 requires other packages for directories it uses.
[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 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]: 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:
[-]: I
[Bug 1357110] Review Request: foma - Xerox-compatible finite-state compiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1357110
Ville-Pekka Vainio changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(anto.trande@gmail |
|.com) |
--- Comment #5 from Ville-Pekka Vainio ---
- ldconfig calls removed, I only plan to have this in F28+
- soname globbing removed
- I used %{build_ldflags} as per
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/redhat-rpm-config/blob/master/f/buildflags.md
- Had some linking issues when working on the changes, but maybe I just had a
typo in the spec, the package seems to link now.
SPEC: https://vpv.fedorapeople.org/packages/foma-2018/foma.spec
SRPM:
https://vpv.fedorapeople.org/packages/foma-2018/foma-0.9.18-0.1.git0fa48db.fc30.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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1357110] Review Request: foma - Xerox-compatible finite-state compiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1357110
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
-
%post -n %{libname} -p /sbin/ldconfig
%postun -n %{libname} -p /sbin/ldconfig
This is not needed starting Fedora 28. Either remove it or use
%ldconfig_scriptlets -n %{libname} if youplan to support F27.
- %{_libdir}/%{libname}.so.*
New rule: don't glob the major soname version in order to avoid unintentional
soname bump (https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/784)
- Also replace the LDFLAGS with Fedora ones in foma/Makefile
(%__global_ldflags)
--
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/YC5FSRT25SSECJ36XXDQJ5KSY3OGDHDM/
[Bug 1357110] Review Request: foma - Xerox-compatible finite-state compiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1357110 Ville-Pekka Vainio changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |NEW CC||anto.tra...@gmail.com Blocks|201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) | Resolution|WONTFIX |--- Whiteboard|AwaitingSubmitter | Flags||needinfo?(anto.trande@gmail ||.com) Keywords||Reopened --- Comment #3 from Ville-Pekka Vainio --- Reopening the report. Antonio, are you still interested in reviewing this one? Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449 [Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter response should be blocking this bug. -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/HODVVM4GR3NSW4UYKXQLFIIEPZNOSOOZ/
[Bug 1357110] Review Request: foma - Xerox-compatible finite-state compiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1357110 --- Comment #2 from Ville-Pekka Vainio --- It's been two years, but I'm back attempting to package foma. I believe I've addressed all of the issues pointed out in the review. The new packages are here: https://vpv.fedorapeople.org/packages/foma-2018/foma.spec https://vpv.fedorapeople.org/packages/foma-2018/foma-0.9.18-0.1.git0fa48db.fc29.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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/UDBR5F5VNTGWPVM6DITE33AG6U6NARN6/
[Bug 1357110] Review Request: foma - Xerox-compatible finite-state compiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1357110 Igor Gnatenko changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Last Closed||2016-09-06 12:13:28 -- 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1357110] Review Request: foma - Xerox-compatible finite-state compiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1357110 Antonio Trande changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Blocks||201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) Assignee|anto.tra...@gmail.com |nob...@fedoraproject.org Whiteboard||AwaitingSubmitter Flags|fedora-review? | Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449 [Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter response should be blocking this bug. -- 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1357110] Review Request: foma - Xerox-compatible finite-state compiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1357110
--- Comment #1 from Antonio Trande ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros
- Please, move following lines under %install section
sed -i '/^prefix/c\prefix = %{buildroot}%{_prefix}' foma/Makefile
sed -i '/^libdir/c\libdir = %{buildroot}%{_libdir}' foma/Makefile
- License file is installed by base package only.
'foma' and 'libfoma-devel' require 'libfoma', 'COPYING' and 'README' files
can be provided by 'libfoma' only.
- Libraries and binary files are "No Full Relro"
Binary files are "No PIE"
Please, fix compiler/linker flags according to
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Harden_All_Packages
- Fix the 'unused-direct-shlib-dependency' warnings
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues?rd=PackageMaintainers/Common_Rpmlint_Issues#unused-direct-shlib-dependency
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[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: "Apache (v2.0)", "GPL (v2)", "Unknown or generated". 9 files
have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/sagitter/1357110-foma/licensecheck.txt
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: %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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 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]: 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 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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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 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]: 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:
[-]: If
[Bug 1357110] Review Request: foma - Xerox-compatible finite-state compiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1357110 Antonio Trande changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|anto.tra...@gmail.com 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
