[Bug 868578] Review Request: re2 - C++ fast alternative to backtracking RE engines
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868578 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- re2-20130115-2.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. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=DZ5vE9kRxwa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868578] Review Request: re2 - C++ fast alternative to backtracking RE engines
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868578 --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- re2-20130115-2.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Cad3lvUvG1a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868578] Review Request: re2 - C++ fast alternative to backtracking RE engines
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868578 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2013-03-02 14:53:00 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=9mtiHqJ1Tqa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868578] Review Request: re2 - C++ fast alternative to backtracking RE engines
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868578 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- re2-20130115-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=rYkTVpaewAa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868578] Review Request: re2 - C++ fast alternative to backtracking RE engines
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868578 --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- re2-20130115-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=hTDrZMdSXca=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868578] Review Request: re2 - C++ fast alternative to backtracking RE engines
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868578 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ZkoYn7r6Jfa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868578] Review Request: re2 - C++ fast alternative to backtracking RE engines
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868578 --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- re2-20130115-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=gbRhecviYZa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868578] Review Request: re2 - C++ fast alternative to backtracking RE engines
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868578 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=rCeBwV3PETa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868578] Review Request: re2 - C++ fast alternative to backtracking RE engines
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868578 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- re2-20130115-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/re2-20130115-2.fc18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=87eJ27Giyaa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868578] Review Request: re2 - C++ fast alternative to backtracking RE engines
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868578 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- re2-20130115-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/re2-20130115-2.fc17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=VHiyigx9hta=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868578] Review Request: re2 - C++ fast alternative to backtracking RE engines
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868578 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- re2-20130115-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/re2-20130115-2.el6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=vGQnsnhkbya=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868578] Review Request: re2 - C++ fast alternative to backtracking RE engines
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868578 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- re2-20130115-2.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/re2-20130115-2.el5 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=5g5w6RrDTSa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868578] Review Request: re2 - C++ fast alternative to backtracking RE engines
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868578 Denis Arnaud denis.arnaud_fed...@m4x.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #13 from Denis Arnaud denis.arnaud_fed...@m4x.org --- Many thanks Mathieu! - New Package SCM Request === Package Name: re2 Short Description: C++ fast alternative to backtracking RE engines Owners: denisarnaud Branches: f17 f18 f19 el5 el6 FAS username: denisarnaud - -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=HU0Rdw7kjza=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868578] Review Request: re2 - C++ fast alternative to backtracking RE engines
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868578 --- Comment #14 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. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=puqsWPKlLsa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868578] Review Request: re2 - C++ fast alternative to backtracking RE engines
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868578 --- Comment #9 from Denis Arnaud denis.arnaud_fed...@m4x.org --- Thanks Mathieu for that thorough review. I am working on integrating your feedback. In the meantime, I just figured out that an old version of that package is already in the Fedora repository: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/re2c So, I will try to work with the maintainer, namely thias, to upgrade that package to the newest version if he so likes. Otherwise, I will go on submitting that newest version here. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=yRASbqYhDka=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868578] Review Request: re2 - C++ fast alternative to backtracking RE engines
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868578 --- Comment #10 from Denis Arnaud denis.arnaud_fed...@m4x.org --- (In reply to comment #9) In the meantime, I just figured out that an old version of that package is already in the Fedora repository: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/re2c Please disregard that comment, as re2c and re2 are different projects with different maintainers. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=6Tsj1pKdRYa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868578] Review Request: re2 - C++ fast alternative to backtracking RE engines
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868578 --- Comment #11 from Denis Arnaud denis.arnaud_fed...@m4x.org --- Spec URL: http://denisarnaud.fedorapeople.org/re2/re2.spec SRPM URL: http://denisarnaud.fedorapeople.org/re2/re2-20130115-2.fc18.src.rpm == (In reply to comment #8) Now for the actual review... [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. = Drop the Requires: pkgconfig from the devel subpackage, it doesn't provide any pkgconfig file. Done [!]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. = There are a few undefined-non-weak-symbol warnings, which should be fixed. (try ldd -d -r /usr/lib64/libre2.so.0.0.0 for more details) Adding -pthread to the CXXFLAGS seems to be enough. However, if this flags really is necessary, I would strongly suggest you submit a patch upstream so that it gets added to the RE2_CXXFLAGS in the Makefile (as these seem to be the minimum flags which shouldn't be overwritten) = The rest of the warnings can be safely ignored. Done. It has been suggested upstream to have an additional RE2_LDFLAGS variable in the Makefile (http://code.google.com/p/re2/source/browse/Makefile): http://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/re2-dev/bkUDtO5l6Lo [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. = Try passing the INSTALL=install -p variable to the make install command. Done = Ready for the final review/approval :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=yRDhd9HPQBa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868578] Review Request: re2 - C++ fast alternative to backtracking RE engines
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868578
Mathieu Bridon boche...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #12 from Mathieu Bridon boche...@fedoraproject.org ---
Differences between this new submission and the previous one:
--
--- 868578-re2.old/srpm/re2.spec2013-02-14 12:50:50.829422617 +0800
+++ 868578-re2/srpm/re2.spec2013-02-18 11:44:51.036537713 +0800
@@ -1,64 +1,52 @@
-#
Name: re2
Version:20130115
-Release:1%{?dist}
+Release:2%{?dist}
Summary:C++ fast alternative to backtracking RE engines
-Group: System Environment/Libraries
+Group: System Environment/Libraries
License:BSD
URL:http://code.google.com/p/%{name}/
Source0:http://re2.googlecode.com/files/%{name}-%{version}.tgz
BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XX)
%description
-RE2 is a fast, safe, thread-friendly alternative to backtracking
-regular expression engines like those used in PCRE, Perl, and
-Python. It is a C++ library.
-
-Backtracking engines are typically full of features and convenient
-syntactic sugar but can be forced into taking exponential amounts of
-time on even small inputs. RE2 uses automata theory to guarantee that
-regular expression searches run in time linear in the size of the
-input. RE2 implements memory limits, so that searches can be
-constrained to a fixed amount of memory. RE2 is engineered to use a
-small fixed C++ stack footprint no matter what inputs or regular
-expressions it must process; thus RE2 is useful in multi-threaded
-environments where thread stacks cannot grow arbitrarily large.
-
-On large inputs, RE2 is often much faster than backtracking engines;
-its use of automata theory lets it apply additional optimization that
-the others cannot.
-
-RE2 supports sub-match extraction, but not back references.
-
-If you absolutely need backreferences and generalized assertions, then
-RE2 is not for you, but you might be interested in irregexp, Google
-Chrome's regular expression engine.
+RE2 is a C++ library providing a fast, safe, thread-friendly alternative to
+backtracking regular expression engines like those used in PCRE, Perl, and
+Python.
+
+Backtracking engines are typically full of features and convenient syntactic
+sugar but can be forced into taking exponential amounts of time on even small
+inputs.
+
+In contrast, RE2 uses automata theory to guarantee that regular expression
+searches run in time linear in the size of the input, at the expense of some
+missing features (e.g back references and generalized assertions).
%packagedevel
-Summary:Header files, libraries and development helper tools for
%{name}
+Summary:C++ header files and library symbolic links for %{name}
Group: Development/Libraries
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
-Requires: pkgconfig
%descriptiondevel
-This package contains the header files, shared libraries and
-development helper tools for %{name}. If you would like to develop
-programs using %{name}, you will need to install %{name}-devel.
+This package contains the C++ header files and symbolic links to the shared
+libraries for %{name}. If you would like to develop programs using %{name},
+you will need to install %{name}-devel.
%prep
%setup -q -n %{name}
%build
-CXXFLAGS=${CXXFLAGS:-%optflags}; export CXXFLAGS
-LDFLAGS=${LDFLAGS:-%__global_ldflags}; export LDFLAGS
-make %{?_smp_mflags} CXXFLAGS='%optflags' LDFLAGS='%__global_ldflags'
includedir=%{_includedir} libdir=%{_libdir}
+# The -pthread flag issue has been submitted upstream:
+# http://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/re2-dev/bkUDtO5l6Lo
+CXXFLAGS=${CXXFLAGS:-%optflags}
+LDFLAGS=${LDFLAGS:-%__global_ldflags} -pthread
+make %{?_smp_mflags} CXXFLAGS=$CXXFLAGS LDFLAGS=$LDFLAGS
includedir=%{_includedir} libdir=%{_libdir}
%install
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
-make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT includedir=%{_includedir}
libdir=%{_libdir}
+make install INSTALL=install -p DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
includedir=%{_includedir} libdir=%{_libdir}
# Suppress the static library
find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -name 'lib%{name}.a' -exec rm -f {} \;
@@ -78,12 +66,14 @@
%{_libdir}/lib%{name}.so.*
%files devel
-%doc LICENSE README
%{_includedir}/%{name}
%{_libdir}/lib%{name}.so
%changelog
+* Sun Feb 17 2013 Denis Arnaud denis.arnaud_fed...@m4x.org 20130115-2
+- Took into account the feedback from review request (#868578).
+
* Sun Feb 10 2013 Denis Arnaud denis.arnaud_fed...@m4x.org 20130115-1
- The download source comes now directly from the project.
--
This addresses all the issues I had with the previous package.
Approved.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are
[Bug 868578] Review Request: re2 - C++ fast alternative to backtracking RE engines
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868578
Mathieu Bridon boche...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|boche...@fedoraproject.org
--- Comment #8 from Mathieu Bridon boche...@fedoraproject.org ---
A couple of (non-blocker) comments first.
* What is this empty comment line at the top of the spec file? Did you want to
add something but forgot?
* Try to remove trailing spaces. There's one on the Group: line.
* The file re2/testing/unicode_test.py has a wrong shebang
(#!/usr/bin/python2.4), however it doesn't seem to be used anywhere (not even
during unit tests) and isn't installed, so that can probably be ignored.
* Why do you both export the CXXFLAGS/LDFLAGS and then pass them again on the
make command line? Exporting doesn't seem to do anything, they need to be
passed to the command, so you could just do:
-
CXXFLAGS=${CXXFLAGS:-%optflags}
LDFLAGS=${LDFLAGS:-%__global_ldflags}
make %{?_smp_mflags} CXXFLAGS=$CXXFLAGS LDFLAGS=$LDFLAGS
includedir=%{_includedir} libdir=%{_libdir}
-
* The devel package requires the main package, as such it doesn't need to
include the README and LICENSE files. Consider removing them.
* The %description for the main package is still **very** long. How about
something like this instead:
-
RE2 is a C++ library providing a fast, safe, thread-friendly alternative to
backtracking regular expression engines like those used in PCRE, Perl, and
Python.
Backtracking engines are typically full of features and convenient
syntactic sugar but can be forced into taking exponential amounts of
time on even small inputs.
In contrast, RE2 uses automata theory to guarantee that regular expression
searches run in time linear in the size of the input, at the expense of some
missing features (e.g back references and generalized assertions).
-
* The %description of the devel subpackage talks about development helper
tools, but there aren't any. Consider removing the misleading statement.
Now for the actual review...
Summary of issues
=
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
= Drop the Requires: pkgconfig from the devel subpackage, it doesn't
provide any pkgconfig file.
[!]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
= There are a few undefined-non-weak-symbol warnings, which should be
fixed. (try ldd -d -r /usr/lib64/libre2.so.0.0.0 for more details)
Adding -pthread to the CXXFLAGS seems to be enough. However, if this
flags really is necessary, I would strongly suggest you submit a patch
upstream so that it gets added to the RE2_CXXFLAGS in the Makefile (as
these seem to be the minimum flags which shouldn't be overwritten)
= The rest of the warnings can be safely ignored.
[!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
= Try passing the INSTALL=install -p variable to the make install
command.
Details
===
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[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]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[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]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
= Submitter indicated their intention to maintain EL 5 packages, for
which this is necessary.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[-]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files
[Bug 868578] Review Request: re2 - C++ fast alternative to backtracking RE engines
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868578 --- Comment #7 from Denis Arnaud denis.arnaud_fed...@m4x.org --- Spec URL: http://denisarnaud.fedorapeople.org/re2/re2.spec SRPM URL: http://denisarnaud.fedorapeople.org/re2/re2-20130115-1.fc18.src.rpm As suggested in comment #4, that new version uses the (latest) tarball from the Google project repository (http://code.google.com/p/re2/downloads/list). Ready for a new review :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=DHWgSc7wA2a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868578] Review Request: re2 - C++ fast alternative to backtracking RE engines
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868578 --- Comment #5 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at --- Please go ahead, I was just commenting. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=uzMe3KiqZoa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868578] Review Request: re2 - C++ fast alternative to backtracking RE engines
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868578 --- Comment #6 from Denis Arnaud denis.arnaud_fed...@m4x.org --- (In reply to comment #4) Denis, just a quick note meanwhile, why 0.0.0 as the version? Why not use the tarball version from: https://code.google.com/p/re2/downloads/list Thanks, Mathieu! Indeed, I did not know that page (Google Code download site)... That is why I used SourceForge. I will now use, for sure not before the week-end. In the meantime, do not hesitate to go on with the (remaining part of the) review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=lKwLO9PZW3a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868578] Review Request: re2 - C++ fast alternative to backtracking RE engines
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868578 Mathieu Bridon boche...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||boche...@fedoraproject.org --- Comment #4 from Mathieu Bridon boche...@fedoraproject.org --- Volker, did you intend to do a full review? Otherwise, I'm interested in taking it from here. Denis, just a quick note meanwhile, why 0.0.0 as the version? Why not use the tarball version from: https://code.google.com/p/re2/downloads/list -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=oCv2nmu7ara=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868578] Review Request: re2 - C++ fast alternative to backtracking RE engines
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868578 --- Comment #3 from Denis Arnaud denis.arnaud_fed...@m4x.org --- Spec URL: http://denisarnaud.fedorapeople.org/re2/re2.spec SRPM URL: http://denisarnaud.fedorapeople.org/re2/re2-0.0.0-2.fc17.src.rpm [For later reference, I just add the corresponding URLs of the packaging guidelines] (In reply to comment #1) The build doesn't respect Fedora's compiler flags: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags You are right. I found a work around, redefining the CXXFLAGS and LDFLAGS environment variables. It may not be the cleanest way to do it, but I avoided to have to patch the Makefile in the source tar-ball. If you have a better idea, do not hesitate. Please remove the defattrs, as they are the default. Reference: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_Permissions You are right. Done If you don't go for EPEL 5, remove the clean section, the rm in the install section and the buildroot definition. I intend to package re2 for EPEL (5 and 6) as well. You don't need the LICENSE file in the devel package. Don't know whether the README is useful there. Reference: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Subpackage_Licensing http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Duplicate_Files You are right. As a consequence, there is no %doc files in the -devel sub-package, and rpmlint is not happy with that (it issues a warning). But I believe that we can live with that :) The description is very long and a bit like documentation in some sections. You are right. I reduced it while keeping the essential I believe. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868578] Review Request: re2 - C++ fast alternative to backtracking RE engines
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868578 --- Comment #2 from Denis Arnaud denis.arnaud_fed...@m4x.org --- Thanks Volker for the review. I will have a look at it shortly and publish the amended versions of the package. For the compiler flags (you are right; thanks to have spotted it), I will have some work to do, though, as the Makefile needs to be patched. Apparently, upstream is no longer maintained (there has been no activity for 2 years already). However, RE2 seems to have reached a mature enough state, thus avoiding the need to be actively maintained... Note that I will strive to maintain that package also on EPEL (5 and 6). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868578] Review Request: re2 - C++ fast alternative to backtracking RE engines
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868578 Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at changed: What|Removed |Added CC||volke...@gmx.at --- Comment #1 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at --- The build doesn't respect Fedora's compiler flags: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags Please remove the defattrs, as they are the default. If you don't go for EPEL 5, remove the clean section, the rm in the install section and the buildroot definition. You don't need the LICENSE file in the devel package. Don't know whether the README is useful there. The description is very long and a bit like documentation in some sections. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
