[Bug 972568] Review Request: uthash - A hash table for C structures
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972568 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #20 from Christopher Meng --- Package Change Request == Package Name: uthash New Branches: epel7 Owners: cicku -- 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 972568] Review Request: uthash - A hash table for C structures
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972568 --- Comment #21 from Jon Ciesla --- 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 972568] Review Request: uthash - A hash table for C structures
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972568 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 972568] Review Request: uthash - A hash table for C structures
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972568 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) CC||b...@dikkenberg.net --- Comment #1 from Christopher Meng --- *** Bug 798438 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- 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=ekWwJ6V6Qc&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 972568] Review Request: uthash - A hash table for C structures
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972568 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | -- 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=Ay9kurTvls&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 972568] Review Request: uthash - A hash table for C structures
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972568 Susi Lehtola changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|susi.leht...@iki.fi Flags||fedora-review? Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||susi.leht...@iki.fi -- 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=3MZlfQUJ52&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 972568] Review Request: uthash - A hash table for C structures
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972568 --- Comment #2 from Susi Lehtola --- Fails to build in mock perl ./do_tests test83 failed test84 failed 84 tests conducted, 2 failed. -- 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=01GlYQG35y&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 972568] Review Request: uthash - A hash table for C structures
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972568
--- Comment #3 from Susi Lehtola ---
Initial notes:
Source URL is incorrect
Source0:
http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL?rd=Packaging/SourceURL#Sourceforge.net
**
BuildRequires: glibc-devel
can be removed, it's one of the packages that's automatically installed anyway.
**
The files don't belong in a package called uthash. Instead, they should go to
uthash-devel as per the packaging guidelines.
You can, of course, make uthash-devel provide uthash, so that installing uthash
gives you uthash-devel. (There should be no main package.)
**
I abhor rampant use of wildcards in %files, because they can lead to unwanted
results, and often it's much clearer to just type out the few extra letters to
make things clear to anyone reading the spec. So I really suggest changing
%{_includedir}/*
to
%{_includedir}/ut*.h
--
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=D346tqJLak&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 972568] Review Request: uthash - A hash table for C structures
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972568
--- Comment #4 from Christopher Meng ---
(In reply to Susi Lehtola from comment #3)
> Source URL is incorrect
> Source0:
> http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
> see
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL?rd=Packaging/
> SourceURL#Sourceforge.net
Hi, thanks for your review help first.
This project has been moved to github, I've fixed the problem.
FYI, I've sent a mail to notify the upstream to provide the latest tarball on
sf.net. Please go ahead(I won't ignore this.)
>
> BuildRequires: glibc-devel
> can be removed, it's one of the packages that's automatically installed
> anyway.
Fixed.
> The files don't belong in a package called uthash. Instead, they should go
> to uthash-devel as per the packaging guidelines.
>
> You can, of course, make uthash-devel provide uthash, so that installing
> uthash gives you uthash-devel. (There should be no main package.)
I remembered that I've browsed some review requests like such case, reviewer
approved. I think suck package is no problem. Welcome any ideas.
> I abhor rampant use of wildcards in %files, because they can lead to
> unwanted results, and often it's much clearer to just type out the few extra
> letters to make things clear to anyone reading the spec. So I really suggest
> changing
> %{_includedir}/*
> to
> %{_includedir}/ut*.h
OK, easy fix.
Fails to build in mock
> perl ./do_tests
> test83 failed
> test84 failed
> 84 tests conducted, 2 failed.
Hmm... I know this problem as it occured when I first built it. But then there
are no problems, even fedora-review on my host is OK.
I just scratch a build and it really failed, I'll try to fix that.
I'll update this package later.
--
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=udiMKegBgz&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 972568] Review Request: uthash - A hash table for C structures
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972568 --- Comment #5 from Michael Schwendt --- > The files don't belong in a package called uthash. > Instead, they should go to uthash-devel as per the > packaging guidelines. Which would make sense. Just IMHO, and I recommend that for library-less -devel packages so they are like all other -devel packages. However, kindly refer to bug 798438 comment 9. The FPC finds it acceptable, if library-less development packages (no matter whether they contain only headers or also tools) would not be named -devel but used the base package for including their files. As such, building just uthash.noarch from uthash.src.rpm would be okay, although enough packagers would prefer the uthash-devel.noarch style. -- 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=lUcIvyL7DN&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 972568] Review Request: uthash - A hash table for C structures
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972568 --- Comment #6 from Christopher Meng --- (In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #5) > Which would make sense. Just IMHO, and I recommend that for library-less > -devel packages so they are like all other -devel packages. However, kindly > refer to bug 798438 comment 9. The FPC finds it acceptable, if library-less > development packages (no matter whether they contain only headers or also > tools) would not be named -devel but used the base package for including > their files. As such, building just uthash.noarch from uthash.src.rpm would > be okay, although enough packagers would prefer the uthash-devel.noarch > style. Yes, I've seen this review before packaging uthash. I dislike packages only named -devel, but no main package existed. -- 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=AnAx8znQHd&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 972568] Review Request: uthash - A hash table for C structures
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972568 --- Comment #7 from Susi Lehtola --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #6) > (In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #5) > > Which would make sense. Just IMHO, and I recommend that for library-less > > -devel packages so they are like all other -devel packages. However, kindly > > refer to bug 798438 comment 9. The FPC finds it acceptable, if library-less > > development packages (no matter whether they contain only headers or also > > tools) would not be named -devel but used the base package for including > > their files. As such, building just uthash.noarch from uthash.src.rpm would > > be okay, although enough packagers would prefer the uthash-devel.noarch > > style. > > Yes, I've seen this review before packaging uthash. I dislike packages only > named -devel, but no main package existed. Well, the most important thing is that the package that provides the files somehow provides uthash-devel. So either the main package contains the files and Provides: uthash-devel, or the -devel package contains the files and Provides: uthash. In both cases "yum install uthash" works, and so does "yum install uthash-devel". (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #4) > (In reply to Susi Lehtola from comment #3) > > Fails to build in mock > > > perl ./do_tests > > test83 failed > > test84 failed > > 84 tests conducted, 2 failed. > > Hmm... I know this problem as it occured when I first built it. But then > there are no problems, even fedora-review on my host is OK. It would seem that these tests fail because the overhead on x86_64 is different than the one (presumably) on x86, so it's okay to just disable tests 83 and 84. -- 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=lWCsXkXAzo&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 972568] Review Request: uthash - A hash table for C structures
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972568 --- Comment #8 from Christopher Meng --- OK, I'll add virtual provides. And I'll try fixing the test problem before pushing it to the review, please wait a moment. Thanks. -- 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=Mp6Ud0V082&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 972568] Review Request: uthash - A hash table for C structures
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972568 --- Comment #9 from Christopher Meng --- NEW Spec URL: http://cicku.me/uthash.spec NEW SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/uthash-1.9.8-3.fc20.src.rpm -- 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=y1rHTMh4dm&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 972568] Review Request: uthash - A hash table for C structures
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972568
Susi Lehtola changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|b...@dikkenberg.net |
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #10 from Susi Lehtola ---
Provides:%{name}-devel = %{version}
should read
Provides:%{name}-devel = %{version}-%{release}
**
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
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.
[-]: 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
[-]: 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 complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (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]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 122880 bytes in 7 files.
[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]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[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 %doc.
[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 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
[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).
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.
= EXTRA items =
Generic:
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in
[Bug 972568] Review Request: uthash - A hash table for C structures
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972568 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #11 from Christopher Meng --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: uthash Short Description: A hash table for C structures Owners: cicku Branches: f18 f19 el6 InitialCC: -- 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=8hbdDkfrpO&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 972568] Review Request: uthash - A hash table for C structures
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972568 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. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=4aT5xmTuSb&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 972568] Review Request: uthash - A hash table for C structures
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972568 --- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla --- 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=lQKCIur1RR&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 972568] Review Request: uthash - A hash table for C structures
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972568 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- uthash-1.9.8-3.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/uthash-1.9.8-3.fc19 -- 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=rrkrsZsMYN&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 972568] Review Request: uthash - A hash table for C structures
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972568 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. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=8O7D4bECTr&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 972568] Review Request: uthash - A hash table for C structures
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972568 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- uthash-1.9.8-3.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/uthash-1.9.8-3.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=4JzIOw2Dqb&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 972568] Review Request: uthash - A hash table for C structures
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972568 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- uthash-1.9.8-3.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/uthash-1.9.8-3.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=9tTUR3Hrax&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 972568] Review Request: uthash - A hash table for C structures
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972568 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- uthash-1.9.8-3.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=PYoJB3fesO&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 972568] Review Request: uthash - A hash table for C structures
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972568 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||uthash-1.9.8-3.fc19 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2013-07-08 21:37:43 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System --- uthash-1.9.8-3.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 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=hQ3NlR5J1l&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 972568] Review Request: uthash - A hash table for C structures
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972568 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|uthash-1.9.8-3.fc19 |uthash-1.9.8-3.fc18 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System --- uthash-1.9.8-3.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=mIM2DUAPhf&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 972568] Review Request: uthash - A hash table for C structures
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972568 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|uthash-1.9.8-3.fc18 |uthash-1.9.8-3.el6 --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System --- uthash-1.9.8-3.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=u82BrAZhe7&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
