Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: gccxml - XML output extension to GCC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=614196
Summary: Review Request: gccxml - XML output extension to GCC Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: mattias.ellert@fysast.uu.se QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: http://www.grid.tsl.uu.se/review/gccxml.spec SRPM URL: http://www.grid.tsl.uu.se/review/gccxml-0.9.0-0.1.20100713.fc12.src.rpm
Description: There is one open-source C++ parser, the C++ front-end to GCC, which is currently able to deal with the language in its entirety. The purpose of the GCC-XML extension is to generate an XML description of a C++ program from GCC's internal representation. Since XML is easy to parse, other development tools will be able to work with C++ programs without the burden of a complicated C++ parser.
rpmlint complains about "devel-file-in-non-devel-package", but the header files in this package are not header files for a library, they are used at runtime by the executable and therefore can not be put in a devel package.
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=614196
Martin Gieseking martin.gieseking@uos.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |martin.gieseking@uos.de
--- Comment #1 from Martin Gieseking martin.gieseking@uos.de 2010-07-14 13:45:15 EDT --- Hi Mattias,
here are some quick comments:
- rpmlint emits two errors concerning wrong file permissions. The latter should be set to 755:
$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-13-x86_64/result/*.rpm|fgrep E: gccxml.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/gccxml-0.9/IBM/find_flags_common 0644L /bin/sh gccxml.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/gccxml-0.9/Sun/find_flags_common 0644L /bin/sh
- I'm not sure about the overall license because several licenses are involved: + gccxml seems to be licensed under BSD + the bundled gcc libraries are licensed under LGPLv2+ + the included GCC sources are licensed under GPLv2+ ==> this would lead to GPLv2+ for the package + some of the packaged header files are licensed under GPLv3+ with exceptions, e.g. GCC_XML/Support/GCC/4.5/iomanip ==> has this to be reflected in the License field?
- Only the BSD license text is currently packaged. If the resulting license is GPLv2+, GCC/COPYING should be added to %doc.
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=614196
--- Comment #2 from Martin Gieseking martin.gieseking@uos.de 2010-07-14 15:54:15 EDT --- According to the upstream website [1], the package is multi-licensed: BSD and GPLv2+. However, I'm still not sure if this covers the header files licensed under "GPLv3+ with exceptions".
[1] http://www.gccxml.org/HTML/Copyright.html
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=614196
--- Comment #3 from Mattias Ellert mattias.ellert@fysast.uu.se 2010-07-15 00:57:16 EDT --- New version:
Spec URL: http://www.grid.tsl.uu.se/review/gccxml.spec SRPM URL: http://www.grid.tsl.uu.se/review/gccxml-0.9.0-0.2.20100713.fc12.src.rpm
Changed License tag to: BSD and GPLv2+ and GPLv2+ with exceptions and GPLv3+ with exceptions
Fixed the non-executable script issue
Added GPL COPYING file to documentation.
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=614196
Martin Gieseking martin.gieseking@uos.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |martin.gieseking@uos.de Flag| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Martin Gieseking martin.gieseking@uos.de 2010-07-15 03:27:51 EDT --- Here's the formal review. The package looks fine and works as expected. Since some header files refer to a file containing the GCC Runtime Library Exception, I suggest to ask upstream to add this file together with a copy of the GPLv3 license text which is also missing.
$ rpmlint gccxml-*.rpm|fgrep -v devel-file gccxml.src: W: invalid-url Source0: gccxml-0.9.0-20100713.tar.gz gccxml.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gccxml_cc1plus 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 59 warnings.
All remaining warnings are expected and can be ignored.
--------------------------------- Key:
[+] OK [.] OK, not applicable [X] needs work ---------------------------------
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. [+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license. [+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [+] MUST: File containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc. [+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. $ for f in gccxml-0.9.0-20100713.tar.gz*; do tar xzOf $f|md5sum --binary; done 1a7b0a033d3fe06fd5425962fd83e646 - 1a7b0a033d3fe06fd5425962fd83e646 -
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. koji scratch builds: F-13: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2321215 F-14: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2321302
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, ... [+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires. [.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. - locales in GCC/libcpp/po are not installed by gccxml
[.] MUST: Ppackages which store shared libraries must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. [.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ... [+] 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. [+] MUST: Files must not be listed more than once in the spec file's %files listings. [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. [+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. [+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. [.] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. - packaged header files are part of the compiler and thus must be part of the base package
[+] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [.] MUST: Library files without a numeric suffix must go in a -devel package. [.] MUST: devel packages must require the base package [+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, ... [.] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file. [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[X] 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. - files containing the text of GPLv3 and the GCC Runtime Library Exception should be added upstream.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. [.] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. [.] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [.] SHOULD: pkgconfig files should be placed in a -devel pkg. [.] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin ...
---------------- Package APPROVED ----------------
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=614196
Mattias Ellert mattias.ellert@fysast.uu.se changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #5 from Mattias Ellert mattias.ellert@fysast.uu.se 2010-07-15 04:01:33 EDT --- Thank you for the review!
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: gccxml Short Description: XML output extension to GCCxrootd Owners: ellert Branches: F-12 F-13 EL-4 EL-5 EL-6 InitialCC:
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=614196
--- Comment #6 from Mattias Ellert mattias.ellert@fysast.uu.se 2010-07-15 04:09:02 EDT --- Oops - cut and past error... Here is the correct one:
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: gccxml Short Description: XML output extension to GCC Owners: ellert Branches: F-12 F-13 EL-4 EL-5 EL-6 InitialCC:
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=614196
--- Comment #7 from Mattias Ellert mattias.ellert@fysast.uu.se 2010-07-15 04:47:06 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4)
[X] 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. - files containing the text of GPLv3 and the GCC Runtime Library Exception should be added upstream.
Reported upstream:
http://www.gccxml.org/Bug/view.php?id=10993
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=614196
--- Comment #8 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com 2010-07-16 13:40:35 EDT --- CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py).
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=614196
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-07-16 14:53:58 EDT --- gccxml-0.9.0-0.3.20100715.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gccxml-0.9.0-0.3.20100715.fc13
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=614196
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-07-16 14:54:05 EDT --- gccxml-0.9.0-0.3.20100715.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gccxml-0.9.0-0.3.20100715.fc12
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=614196
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-07-16 14:54:50 EDT --- gccxml-0.9.0-0.3.20100715.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gccxml-0.9.0-0.3.20100715.el5
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=614196
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-07-16 14:54:56 EDT --- gccxml-0.9.0-0.3.20100715.el4 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 4. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gccxml-0.9.0-0.3.20100715.el4
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=614196
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |ON_QA
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-07-21 16:03:32 EDT --- gccxml-0.9.0-0.3.20100715.el4 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 4 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update gccxml'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gccxml-0.9.0-0.3.20100715.el4
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=614196
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-07-21 16:06:50 EDT --- gccxml-0.9.0-0.3.20100715.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update gccxml'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gccxml-0.9.0-0.3.20100715.el5
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=614196
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-08-02 10:56:47 EDT --- gccxml-0.9.0-0.3.20100715.el4 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 4 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
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=614196
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |gccxml-0.9.0-0.3.20100715.e | |l4 Resolution| |ERRATA
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=614196
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-08-02 10:59:20 EDT --- gccxml-0.9.0-0.3.20100715.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
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=614196
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|gccxml-0.9.0-0.3.20100715.e |gccxml-0.9.0-0.3.20100715.e |l4 |l5
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org