https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2325154
Bug ID: 2325154 Summary: Review Request: cproc - A C11 compiler using QBE as a backend Product: Fedora Version: rawhide OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: benson_muite@emailplus.org QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/cproc/fedora-rawhi... srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/cproc/fedora-rawhi...
description: cproc is a C11 compiler using QBE as a backend. It is released under the ISC license.
Some C23 features and GNU C extensions are also implemented.
There is still much to do, but it currently implements most of the language and is capable of building software including itself, mcpp, gcc 4.7, binutils, and more.
It was inspired by several other small C compilers including 8cc, c, lacc, and scc.
fas: fed500
koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=125738575
Reproducible: Always
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2325154
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://git.sr.ht/~mcf/cpro | |c/
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8240710 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2325154
Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |lemenkov@gmail.com CC| |lemenkov@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review? Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com --- I'll review it
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2325154
--- Comment #3 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com --- * I could not find anything licensed under MIT or Unlicense. Please review license tag and provide licensing breakdown. * Could you please comment patch' origin (taken from GitHub's PR I guess?)
Apart from this I cannot find anything so here is my formal
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present.
^^^ false positive
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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 must match the actual license. [!]: 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 does not contain desktop file (not a GUI application). [-]: No need to separate development files 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. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: The package is not a rename of another package. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package does not contain systemd file(s). [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Unfortunately the package is designed for a few hardware architectures. [-]: No large documentation files. [x]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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]: 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: [x]: 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). [?]: I did not test if the package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged (git-snapshot). [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Sources weren't verified with gpgverify. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: [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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: cproc-0.0^20240428.f66a6613-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm cproc-0.0^20240428.f66a6613-1.fc42.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmppx_w3p48')] checks: 32, packages: 2
cproc.src: E: spelling-error ('mcpp', '%description -l en_US mcpp -> PCMCIA') cproc.src: E: spelling-error ('gcc', '%description -l en_US gcc -> GCC, cc') cproc.src: E: spelling-error ('binutils', '%description -l en_US binutils -> bilinguals') cproc.src: E: spelling-error ('lacc', '%description -l en_US lacc -> lac, lace, lacy') cproc.src: E: spelling-error ('scc', '%description -l en_US scc -> cc, sec, sci') cproc.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('mcpp', '%description -l en_US mcpp -> PCMCIA') cproc.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('gcc', '%description -l en_US gcc -> GCC, cc') cproc.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('binutils', '%description -l en_US binutils -> bilinguals') cproc.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('lacc', '%description -l en_US lacc -> lac, lace, lacy') cproc.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('scc', '%description -l en_US scc -> cc, sec, sci') cproc.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cproc-qbe cproc.spec:50: W: configure-without-libdir-spec 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 10 errors, 2 warnings, 11 filtered, 10 badness; has taken 0.4 s
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Source checksums ---------------- https://git.sr.ht/~mcf/cproc//archive/f66a661359a39e10af01508ad02429517b8460... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0998a6bfac3c1f1719151fb9e772a4a6a90c775c1332d0b02dcbadeca31e5b9b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0998a6bfac3c1f1719151fb9e772a4a6a90c775c1332d0b02dcbadeca31e5b9b
Requires -------- cproc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides -------- cproc: cproc cproc(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2325154 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Haskell, PHP, Perl, fonts, Python, Ocaml, R, Java, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2325154
--- Comment #4 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Thanks. * I could not find anything licensed under MIT or Unlicense. Please review license tag and provide licensing breakdown. Done. * Could you please comment patch' origin (taken from GitHub's PR I guess?) Done.
Updated:
spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/cproc/fedora-rawhi... srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/cproc/fedora-rawhi...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2325154
Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com --- This package is
================ === APPROVED === ================
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2325154
Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |RELEASE_PENDING
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/cproc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2325154
--- Comment #7 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Thanks for the review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2325154
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RELEASE_PENDING |MODIFIED
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-44dc28f0b9 (cproc-0.0^20240428.f66a6613-1.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-44dc28f0b9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2325154
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-651dd90b5b (cproc-0.0^20240428.f66a6613-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-651dd90b5b
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2325154
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-44dc28f0b9 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-44dc28f0b9 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-44dc28f0b9
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2325154
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-651dd90b5b has been pushed to the Fedora 41 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-651dd90b5b *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-651dd90b5b
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2325154
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2024-11-30 05:23:28
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-44dc28f0b9 (cproc-0.0^20240428.f66a6613-1.fc40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2325154
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-651dd90b5b (cproc-0.0^20240428.f66a6613-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com