https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=824478
Bug ID: 824478 QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org Severity: medium Version: rawhide Priority: medium CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: msp430mcu - Headers and linker scripts for MSP430 micro-controllers Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: rspanton@zepler.net Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora
Spec URL: http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/rds/rpm/mspgcc-uniarch/msp430mcu.spec SRPM URL: http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/rds/rpm/mspgcc-uniarch/msp430mcu-20120406-2.fc1... Description: Headers and linker scripts for the Texas Instruments MSP430 range of micro-controllers. These headers provide the location of all the special function registers of the micro-controllers. The linker scripts provide the mapping of those registers into memory as well as information on where code should be loaded.
I'm in the process of updating the msp430 toolchain from the old gcc 3.x situation that we were shipping to the considerably newer and more functional gcc 4.x "uniarch" variant. This upgrade involves a change in the way that the headers and linker scripts for the msp430 are delivered. Instead of them being part of msp430-libc, they are now brought-in as a separate package called "msp430mcu". The new msp430-libc will depend on this package.
I considered whether this package needs to be a -devel package, and consulted the fedora devel mailing list: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.devel/164102 The general conclusion is that it does not need to be since compiler toolchains are exempt from the -devel package requirement.
rpmlint outputs 0 errors and warnings when run on the specfile. When run on the built package, it spits out a lot of warnings about headers not being in a '-devel' package. These should be ignored (see above).
A review would be very much appreciated.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=824478
Richard Marko rmarko@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |rmarko@redhat.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |rmarko@redhat.com Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=824478
Richard Marko rmarko@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dwmw2@infradead.org Component|Package Review |0xFFFF Flags|fedora-review? |
--- Comment #1 from Richard Marko rmarko@redhat.com ---
Package Review ==============
Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated
==== C/C++ ==== [x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [-]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules. [-]: MUST Package contains no static executables. [x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
==== Generic ==== [x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. [x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. [x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5 [x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [!]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL [x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: defattr(....) present in %files section. This is OK if packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed [x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5 [-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x]: 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 is included in %doc. [x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "UNKNOWN", "*No copyright* UNKNOWN", "*No copyright* GENERATED FILE", "BSD (3 clause)" For detailed output of licensecheck see file: /home/rmarko/824478-msp430mcu/licensecheck.txt [x]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters. [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: MUST Package installs properly. [x]: MUST Package is not relocatable. [x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: SHOULD 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]: SHOULD Dist tag is present. [x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [x]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [!]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. [x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. [x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL. [x]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
Issues: [!]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25clean [!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: defattr(....) present in %files section. This is OK if packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions [!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5 [!]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
MD5-sum check ------------- http://sourceforge.net/projects/mspgcc/files/msp430mcu/msp430mcu-20120406.ta... : MD5SUM this package : f813c659db2d31be55e63ad7ab90837b MD5SUM upstream package : f813c659db2d31be55e63ad7ab90837b
Generated by fedora-review 0.2.0 (53cc903) last change: 2012-07-09 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 824478
Rpmlint -------
$ rpmlint *.rpm | grep -v devel-file-in-non-devel-package msp430mcu.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary msp430mcu-config msp430mcu.noarch: W: non-standard-dir-in-usr msp430 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 457 warnings.
Removed all issues regarding -devel subpackage as this is not applicable for this package.
Package can be approved after you fix these minor issues.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=824478
--- Comment #2 from Richard Marko rmarko@redhat.com --- Also I've found your DESTDIR patch applied in one of the latest releases - http://mspgcc.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=mspgcc/msp430mcu;a=commit...
Would be nice if in some point we can provide not only LTS releases but also more recent versions. Do you think it would be feasible and worth the effort?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=824478
--- Comment #3 from Robert Spanton rspanton@zepler.net --- Hi Richard,
[!]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25clean
Hmm. The %clean section is already present and contains exactly that line.
[!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: defattr(....) present in %files section. This is OK if packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions
The %files section has a %defattr line at the top...
[!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5
The %install section has exactly that line at the top.
[!]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
It's still the latest LTS release version.
Would be nice if in some point we can provide not only LTS releases but also more recent versions. Do you think it would be feasible and worth the effort?
Here's what Peter Bigot, the mspgcc maintainer, has said the LTS releases are for:
Downstream packagers should publish only LTS releases, and should periodically check for new patches to be integrated into their packages (though I'll try to announce them periodically).
I would prefer to stick with the LTS releases, as these are the wishes of the project.
Hopefully that addresses all the issues.
Cheers,
Rob
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=824478
--- Comment #4 from Richard Marko rmarko@redhat.com --- Hi,
If you are not planning to support EPEL5 all the stuff mentioned is redundant and should be removed. fedora-review messages are not very clear about that.
Thanks for the LTS explanation.
- Richard
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=824478
--- Comment #5 from Robert Spanton rspanton@zepler.net --- Hi,
Ah, sorry, I had misunderstood those EPEL-related things. I've now removed all those bits that generated warnings. Here's the updated spec and SRPM:
spec: http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/rds/rpm/mspgcc-uniarch/msp430mcu.spec srpm: http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/rds/rpm/mspgcc-uniarch/f17/msp430mcu-20120406-3...
Cheers,
Rob
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=824478
Richard Marko rmarko@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Component|0xFFFF |Package Review Assignee|rmarko@redhat.com |nobody@fedoraproject.org
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=824478
Richard Marko rmarko@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Richard Marko rmarko@redhat.com --- Hi,
thanks for the update. Approved.
- Richard
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=824478
Robert Spanton rspanton@zepler.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #7 from Robert Spanton rspanton@zepler.net --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: msp430mcu Short Description: Headers and linker scripts for MSP430 micro-controllers Owners: rspanton Branches: f17 f18 InitialCC:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=824478
--- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
Richard, please take ownership of review BZs, thanks!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=824478
Richard Marko rmarko@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |rmarko@redhat.com
--- Comment #9 from Richard Marko rmarko@redhat.com --- Sorry, I've changed the component by accident.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=824478
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=824478
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- msp430mcu-20120406-3.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/msp430mcu-20120406-3.fc17
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=824478
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- msp430mcu-20120406-3.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=824478
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2012-08-23 19:25:49
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- msp430mcu-20120406-3.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org