[Bug 2177363] New: Review Request: bcunit - BCUnit is a unit testing framework for C, derived from CUnit.
1:11 a.m.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177363
Bug ID: 2177363
Summary: Review Request: bcunit - BCUnit is a unit testing
framework for C, derived from CUnit.
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Component: Package Review
Severity: medium
Priority: medium
Assignee: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org
Reporter: philip.wyett(a)kathenas.org
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora
Spec URL:
https://kathenas.fedorapeople.org/development/fedora/rawhide/for_review/b...
SRPM URL:
https://kathenas.fedorapeople.org/development/fedora/rawhide/for_review/b...
Description:
BCUnit is a unit testing framework for C, derived from CUnit.
(B)CUnit provides various interfaces to the framework, some of which
are platform dependent (e.g. curses on *nix). The framework complies
with the conventional structure of test cases bundled into suites
which are registered with the framework for running.
Fedora Account System Username: kathenas
Additional Information:
General:
[1]: 'bcunit' is a BuildRequires of 'bctoolbox' (unpackaged as yet) that
is a
BuildRequires of 'ortp' that is in fedora but vastly out of date.
[2]: 'bcunit' is a BuildRequires for many packages in the 'linphone' stack
of
packages.
[3]: New package - Only for fedora rawhide/39 and going forward. Changes to any
stable release would be too disruptive.
rpmlint:
[]: (S)RPM signed with the kathenas key.
[]: FSF address errors are reported upstream via links below.
- https://github.com/BelledonneCommunications/bcunit/issues/3
- https://github.com/BelledonneCommunications/bcunit/issues/4
Note: Only way to report bugs is via github mirror repos and not via the
gitlab.linphone.org instance which does not allow registration.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177363
1:13 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2177363] Review Request: bcunit - BCUnit is a unit testing
framework for C, derived from CUnit.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177363
Phil Wyett <philip.wyett(a)kathenas.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment|0 |updated
--- Comment #0 has been edited ---
Spec URL:
https://kathenas.fedorapeople.org/development/fedora/rawhide/for_review/b...
SRPM URL:
https://kathenas.fedorapeople.org/development/fedora/rawhide/for_review/b...
Description:
BCUnit is a unit testing framework for C, derived from CUnit.
(B)CUnit provides various interfaces to the framework, some of which
are platform dependent (e.g. curses on *nix). The framework complies
with the conventional structure of test cases bundled into suites
which are registered with the framework for running.
Fedora Account System Username: kathenas
Additional Information:
General:
[1]: 'bcunit' is a BuildRequires of 'bctoolbox' (unpackaged as yet) that
is a
BuildRequires of 'ortp' that is in fedora but vastly out of date.
[2]: 'bcunit' is a BuildRequires for many packages in the 'linphone' stack
of
packages.
[3]: New package - Only for fedora rawhide/39 and going forward. Changes to any
stable release would be too disruptive.
rpmlint:
[1]: (S)RPM signed with the kathenas key.
[2]: FSF address errors are reported upstream via links below.
- https://github.com/BelledonneCommunications/bcunit/issues/3
- https://github.com/BelledonneCommunications/bcunit/issues/4
Note: Only way to report bugs is via github mirror repos and not via the
gitlab.linphone.org instance which does not allow registration.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177363
1:20 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2177363] Review Request: bcunit - BCUnit is a unit testing
framework for C, derived from CUnit.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177363
Jakub Kadlčík <jkadlcik(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
URL| |https://gitlab.linphone.org
| |/BC/public/bcunit/
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Kadlčík <jkadlcik(a)redhat.com> ---
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5627909
(succeeded)
Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
--
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177363
5:46 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2177363] Review Request: bcunit - BCUnit is a unit testing
framework for C, derived from CUnit.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177363
Benson Muite <benson_muite(a)emailplus.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |benson_muite(a)emailplus.org
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flags| |fedora-review?
CC| |benson_muite(a)emailplus.org
--- Comment #2 from Benson Muite <benson_muite(a)emailplus.org> ---
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
- Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: bcunit-doc : /usr/share/doc/BCUnit/headers/Automated.h bcunit-doc :
/usr/share/doc/BCUnit/headers/BCUnit_intl.h bcunit-doc :
/usr/share/doc/BCUnit/headers/Basic.h bcunit-doc :
/usr/share/doc/BCUnit/headers/CUCurses.h bcunit-doc :
/usr/share/doc/BCUnit/headers/CUError.h bcunit-doc :
/usr/share/doc/BCUnit/headers/Console.h bcunit-doc :
/usr/share/doc/BCUnit/headers/MyMem.h bcunit-doc :
/usr/share/doc/BCUnit/headers/TestDB.h bcunit-doc :
/usr/share/doc/BCUnit/headers/TestRun.h bcunit-doc :
/usr/share/doc/BCUnit/headers/Util.h bcunit-doc :
/usr/share/doc/BCUnit/headers/Win.h bcunit-doc :
/usr/share/doc/BCUnit/headers/wxWidget.h
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/#_devel_packages
===== 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]: 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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GNU General Public
License", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "GNU
Library
General Public License, Version 2.0", "GNU Library General Public
License v2 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]". 115
files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/bcunit/2177363-bcunit/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[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.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[ ]: 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 30720 bytes in 5 files.
[ ]: 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]: 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[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 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.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[ ]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[ ]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
is arched.
[x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: bcunit-5.2.0-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm
bcunit-devel-5.2.0-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm
bcunit-doc-5.2.0-1.fc39.noarch.rpm
bcunit-debuginfo-5.2.0-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm
bcunit-debugsource-5.2.0-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm
bcunit-5.2.0-1.fc39.src.rpm
========================================================================
rpmlint session starts
=======================================================================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
/usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp6l_rylk0')]
checks: 31, packages: 6
bcunit-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
bcunit.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/bcunit/COPYING
bcunit-doc.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/BCUnit/fdl.html
========================================= 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2
errors, 1 warnings, 2 badness; has taken 3.6 s
========================================
Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: bcunit-debuginfo-5.2.0-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm
========================================================================
rpmlint session starts
=======================================================================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
/usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp2sb699ak')]
checks: 31, packages: 1
========================================= 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0
errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s
========================================
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts
============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
/usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 31, packages: 5
bcunit-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
bcunit-doc.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/BCUnit/fdl.html
bcunit.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/bcunit/COPYING
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 2 badness; has taken
1.4 s
Source checksums
----------------
https://gitlab.linphone.org/BC/public/bcunit/-/archive/5.2.0/bcunit-5.2.0...
:
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
67b9186c42bd91d076b33063a33837dbb11a753eb35ad7ed8db8d65cdf88ef83
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
67b9186c42bd91d076b33063a33837dbb11a753eb35ad7ed8db8d65cdf88ef83
Requires
--------
bcunit (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
libc.so.6()(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
bcunit-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/usr/bin/pkg-config
bcunit(x86-64)
libbcunit.so.1()(64bit)
bcunit-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
bcunit-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
bcunit-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides
--------
bcunit:
bcunit
bcunit(x86-64)
libbcunit.so.1()(64bit)
bcunit-devel:
bcunit-devel
bcunit-devel(x86-64)
pkgconfig(bcunit)
bcunit-doc:
bcunit-doc
bcunit-debuginfo:
bcunit-debuginfo
bcunit-debuginfo(x86-64)
debuginfo(build-id)
libbcunit.so.1.0.1-5.2.0-1.fc39.x86_64.debug()(64bit)
bcunit-debugsource:
bcunit-debugsource
bcunit-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2177363
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic
Disabled plugins: Java, Haskell, Perl, Ocaml, Python, Ruby, R, SugarActivity,
fonts, PHP
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Comments:
a) FSF errors are fine, it uses LGPL2 and the license text on the FSF website
has the old address
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.0.html
The text of the license file should not be changed, please modify issue to
indicate the text should
be the same as on the FSF website.
b) Most of the files seem to be under LGPL2. CAn this be added to the spec, as
well as a license
breakdown? GPL licenses seem to only be used in CMake files which are not
packaged.
c) Is it possible to test that the library works by using one/some of the
examples?
d) May consider putting cmake files in /usr/share/cmake/bcunit or
/usr/lib64/cmake/bcunit
e) Can you raise an issue upstream about soname? If they will not use one, it
should start
with 0, otherwise perhaps upstream will use a soname that matches the release
number
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_downstream_so...
f) Why are header files packaged in the documentation?
g) %ldconfig_scriptlets is typically not needed in the spec file, it will run
automatically
--
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177363
12:27 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2177363] Review Request: bcunit - BCUnit is a unit testing
framework for C, derived from CUnit.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177363
--- Comment #3 from Phil Wyett <philip.wyett(a)kathenas.org> ---
Trigger new Copr build with updated package.
Spec URL:
https://kathenas.fedorapeople.org/development/fedora/rawhide/for_review/b...
SRPM URL:
https://kathenas.fedorapeople.org/development/fedora/rawhide/for_review/b...
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177363
12:34 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2177363] Review Request: bcunit - BCUnit is a unit testing
framework for C, derived from CUnit.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177363
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Kadlčík <jkadlcik(a)redhat.com> ---
Created attachment 1953866
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1953866&action=edit
The .spec file difference from Copr build 5627909 to 5711034
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177363
12:34 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2177363] Review Request: bcunit - BCUnit is a unit testing
framework for C, derived from CUnit.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177363
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Kadlčík <jkadlcik(a)redhat.com> ---
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5711034
(succeeded)
Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
--
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177363
12:37 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2177363] Review Request: bcunit - BCUnit is a unit testing
framework for C, derived from CUnit.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177363
--- Comment #6 from Phil Wyett <philip.wyett(a)kathenas.org> ---
<snip>
Comments:
a) FSF errors are fine, it uses LGPL2 and the license text on the FSF
website has the old address
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.0.html
The text of the license file should not be changed, please modify issue to
indicate the text should
be the same as on the FSF website.
Added info to the upstream bug reports. Had no contact as yet.
b) Most of the files seem to be under LGPL2. CAn this be added to the
spec,
as well as a license
breakdown? GPL licenses seem to only be used in CMake files which are not
packaged.
This was an error on my part. Now just LGPL2.
c) Is it possible to test that the library works by using one/some of
the
examples?
Examples are fixed nd now included in the -devel package.
d) May consider putting cmake files in /usr/share/cmake/bcunit or
/usr/lib64/cmake/bcunit
cmake files are now located under: /usr/lib64/cmake/BCunit.
Have not corrected folder naming. Will look to get upstream to change it rather
than patch for it.
e) Can you raise an issue upstream about soname? If they will not
use one,
it should start
with 0, otherwise perhaps upstream will use a soname that matches the
release number
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
#_downstream_so_name_versioning
I will upstream issue this, but have added a note in spec file why it is '1'
currently.
f) Why are header files packaged in the documentation?
The header files of that location (now in -devel) package are linked to within
the html documentation files.
g) %ldconfig_scriptlets is typically not needed in the spec file, it
will
run automatically
Removed.
Notes:
Reworked and patched FTBFS problems ad others. Dropped not needed and painful
-doc package.
Regards
Phil
--
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177363
5:10 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2177363] Review Request: bcunit - BCUnit is a unit testing
framework for C, derived from CUnit.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177363
--- Comment #7 from Benson Muite <benson_muite(a)emailplus.org> ---
Thanks for the updates.
Can you enable tests?
No need to package binary examples (though may build and possibly run them as
smoke tests):
bcunit-devel.x86_64: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share
/usr/share/BCUnit/Examples/Automated/AutomatedTest
bcunit-devel.x86_64: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share
/usr/share/BCUnit/Examples/Basic/BasicTest
bcunit-devel.x86_64: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share
/usr/share/BCUnit/Examples/Console/ConsoleTest
bcunit-devel.x86_64: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share
/usr/share/BCUnit/Examples/Curses/CursesTest
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177363
9:16 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 2177363] Review Request: bcunit - BCUnit is a unit testing
framework for C, derived from CUnit.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177363
Felix Wang <topazus(a)outlook.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |topazus(a)outlook.com
--- Comment #8 from Felix Wang <topazus(a)outlook.com> ---
Recommends: %{name}-doc = %{version}
The -doc subpackage does not exist in the spec file
--
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177363
10:11 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 2177363] Review Request: bcunit - BCUnit is a unit testing
framework for C, derived from CUnit.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177363
--- Comment #9 from Phil Wyett <philip.wyett(a)kathenas.org> ---
(In reply to Felix Wang from comment #8)
> Recommends: %{name}-doc = %{version}
The -doc subpackage does not exist in the spec file
Thanks. Removed for next upload.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177363
11:21 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 2177363] Review Request: bcunit - BCUnit is a unit testing
framework for C, derived from CUnit.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177363
--- Comment #10 from Phil Wyett <philip.wyett(a)kathenas.org> ---
Trigger new Copr build with updated package.
Spec URL:
https://kathenas.fedorapeople.org/development/fedora/rawhide/for_review/b...
SRPM URL:
https://kathenas.fedorapeople.org/development/fedora/rawhide/for_review/b...
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177363
11:25 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 2177363] Review Request: bcunit - BCUnit is a unit testing
framework for C, derived from CUnit.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177363
--- Comment #11 from Phil Wyett <philip.wyett(a)kathenas.org> ---
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #7)
Thanks for the updates.
Can you enable tests?
No need to package binary examples (though may build and possibly run them
as smoke tests):
bcunit-devel.x86_64: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share
/usr/share/BCUnit/Examples/Automated/AutomatedTest
bcunit-devel.x86_64: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share
/usr/share/BCUnit/Examples/Basic/BasicTest
bcunit-devel.x86_64: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share
/usr/share/BCUnit/Examples/Console/ConsoleTest
bcunit-devel.x86_64: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share
/usr/share/BCUnit/Examples/Curses/CursesTest
Tests cannot be enabled at this time as they are FTBFS. I would like to do a
future fix with upstream involvement.
Have added a conditional for doing test builds with Examples enabled or
disabled. Will not be enabled in release builds.
Did removal of stray reference to -doc package as spotted by Felix Wang.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177363
11:30 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 2177363] Review Request: bcunit - BCUnit is a unit testing
framework for C, derived from CUnit.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177363
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Kadlčík <jkadlcik(a)redhat.com> ---
Created attachment 1954073
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1954073&action=edit
The .spec file difference from Copr build 5711034 to 5715604
--
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177363
11:30 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 2177363] Review Request: bcunit - BCUnit is a unit testing
framework for C, derived from CUnit.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177363
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Kadlčík <jkadlcik(a)redhat.com> ---
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5715604
(succeeded)
Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177363
3:01 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2177363] Review Request: bcunit - BCUnit is a unit testing
framework for C, derived from CUnit.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177363
Benson Muite <benson_muite(a)emailplus.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #14 from Benson Muite <benson_muite(a)emailplus.org> ---
There are a number of warnings during compilation:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-...
May want to report these upstream. Have not fully tested functionality, but
must items seem ok.
Approved.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177363
3:26 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2177363] Review Request: bcunit - BCUnit is a unit testing
framework for C, derived from CUnit.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177363
--- Comment #15 from Phil Wyett <philip.wyett(a)kathenas.org> ---
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #14)
There are a number of warnings during compilation:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-
review-2177363-bcunit/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05715604-bcunit/builder-live.log.
gz
May want to report these upstream. Have not fully tested functionality, but
must items seem ok.
Approved.
Many thanks Benson.
Further work and upstream bug reports will take place as my custodianship of
this package continues.
Regards
Phil
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177363
3:31 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2177363] Review Request: bcunit - BCUnit is a unit testing
framework for C, derived from CUnit.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177363
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions
<fedora-admin-xmlrpc(a)fedoraproject.org> ---
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/bcunit
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177363
6:19 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2177363] Review Request: bcunit - BCUnit is a unit testing
framework for C, derived from CUnit.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177363
--- Comment #17 from Benson Muite <benson_muite(a)emailplus.org> ---
Consider also https://gitlab.com/cunity/cunit which seems to be actively
maintained but
is not the source for https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/CUnit/CUnit/
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177363
7:37 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2177363] Review Request: bcunit - BCUnit is a unit testing
framework for C, derived from CUnit.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177363
--- Comment #18 from Phil Wyett <philip.wyett(a)kathenas.org> ---
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #17)
Consider also https://gitlab.com/cunity/cunit which seems to be
actively
maintained but
is not the source for https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/CUnit/CUnit/
I am just working the Linphone stack currently from Belledonne Communications.
If projects like the one you referenced and the company concerned worked to
extend CUnit together would be good, but I think they are following their own
paths.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177363
9:12 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 2177363] Review Request: bcunit - BCUnit is a unit testing
framework for C, derived from CUnit.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177363
Phil Wyett <philip.wyett(a)kathenas.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Status|POST |CLOSED
Last Closed| |2023-04-12 02:12:15
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177363
439
days inactive
471
days old
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
20 comments
1 participants
participants (1)
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com