[Bug 592579] Review Request: Frama-c - Framework for source code analysis of C software

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Mon May 24 18:39:52 UTC 2010 

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=592579

--- Comment #16 from David A. Wheeler <dwheeler at dwheeler.com> 2010-05-24 14:39:51 EDT ---
Here are the guidelines from:
 http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines
It's hard for me to check on some of these until it can once again build binary
packages on all expected architectures, but I thought it'd be helpful to do as
much as I can now.  In that spirit, here are my comments:

    *  MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted
in the review.[1]

IN PROGRESS.  rpmlint output shown earlier, and issues being worked on.

    * MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines .

OK

    * MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] .

OK

    * MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .

OK generally, but see other comments (including this one).

    * MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and
meet the Licensing Guidelines .

IN PROGRESS.  I suspect the license is fine, but it *must* be specifically
approved.

    * MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license. [3]
Spec claims:
License:        LGPLv2 and GPL+ and GPLv2 and GPLv2+ and BSD and (QPL with
modifications)

See the previous threads about the licensing of this.
I did some additional checking.

In particular: I didn't see any examples of "GPL+", only GPLv2 and GPLv2+.  If
there are no source programs with GPL+, then "GPL+" should be removed from the
license list.  Did I miss it somehow?  If so, what file is "GPL+"?

Here's what I found when I looked:

Under the "src" directory I spot-checked the ".ml" and ".c" files, and they
were
all LGPL v2.1.  Same for "share" and "ptests".

The "cil" subdirectory has "LICENSE", which is (3-clause) BSD, and that matches
the .ml files under there.

external/ptmap.ml has the "Q modified license", so it *IS* used.

./tests/spec/purse.c: GPLv2 (*NOT* GPLv2+, but strictly GPLv2)
./tests/idct/idct.c: GPLv2+
./tests/idct/ieee_1180_1990.c: GPLv2+

The "licenses" directory contains this:
 GPLv3  LGPLv2.1  LGPLv3  Q_MODIFIED_LICENSE
The Q_MODIFIED_LICENSE includes the "Q modified license" and
a reference to "LGPLv2".
This *DIRECTORY* includes GPLv3, but I did not find ANY source file
that actually referred to GPLv3.  A few referred to GPLv2+,
but the license text should say "GPLv2+" and not "GPLv3".
So, even though there's a "GPLv3" in the "licenses" directory,
you should not add "GPLv3" to the Licenses entry.


    * MUST: 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 must be included in %doc.[4]

FAIL.  Under %files, need to add entries for the license files that are there.

    * MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5]

OK

    * MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]

OK

    * MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task.
If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.

OK - hashes match.

wget http://frama-c.com/download/frama-c-Beryllium-20090902.tar.gz
 sha512sum frama-c-Beryllium-20090902.tar.gz
~/rpmbuild/SOURCES/frama-c-Beryllium-20090902.tar.gz 
1f78aaaf99f62a5746a4e673a722d9384156d29027d3ca079c4f0d0de9afa4c4aacd6b65721375f094698453ed339b9de9f91a2ca2d41d4c5784390b0eccb0e3
 frama-c-Beryllium-20090902.tar.gz
1f78aaaf99f62a5746a4e673a722d9384156d29027d3ca079c4f0d0de9afa4c4aacd6b65721375f094698453ed339b9de9f91a2ca2d41d4c5784390b0eccb0e3
 /home/dwheeler/rpmbuild/SOURCES/frama-c-Beryllium-20090902.tar.gz


    * MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture. [7]

IN PROGRESS.

    * MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line. [8]

FAIL - need to add those.

    * MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.

Nothing obviously wrong, but need to check with Mock.

    * MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using
the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9]

NA; no locale info.

    * MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared
library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths,
must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [10]

NA.

    * MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11]

ISSUE.  This has its own version of cil, yet there is an ocaml-cil.

    * MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must
state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker. [12]

NA

    * MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory. [13]

TODO: Looks okay, will be easier to check when it builds... :-).

    * MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings. [14]

TODO: Will wait to check til it builds.

    * MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be
set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include
a %defattr(...) line. [15]

Will wait to check til it builds.

    * MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [16]
OK

    * MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17]

OK

    * MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not
restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [18]
NA

    * MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must
run properly if it is not present. [18]

NA/FAIL.  Nothing is marked as %doc, but I think that's a mistake.

    * MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [19]
ISSUE.  This is *primarily* an application-level program, but it provides OCaml
headers for plug-ins, yes?  Shouldn't those be separate?

    * MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [20]
NA

    * MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in
a -devel package. [19]

TODO: Waiting for working package.

    * MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release} [21]
NA (today)

    * MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.[20]
TODO: Wait for build

    * MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need
a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation.
[22]
FAIL.

Need a desktop file.  These are easy to create.  For a trivial example see:
 gwhy.desktop
from "why".

    * MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed
should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This
means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with
any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you
feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another
package owns, then please present that at package review time. [23]

TODO: Will check once it's building.

    * MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [24]
TODO: Will check once it's building.

I'll get to the SHOULD items after it builds.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.

More information about the package-review mailing list