[Bug 193480] New: Review Request: sunifdef

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193480

Summary: Review Request: sunifdef
           Product: Fedora Extras
           Version: devel
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: Linux
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: normal
         Component: Package Review
        AssignedTo: [e-mail]
        ReportedBy: [e-mail]
         QAContact: [e-mail]

Spec URL: http://physics.open.ac.uk/~ju83/sunifdef.spec
SRPM URL: http://physics.open.ac.uk/~ju83/sunifdef-1.0-1.src.rpm
Description: 
Sunifdef is a commandline tool for simplifying the preprocessor conditionals in
source code (#if and related directives) based on the the user's chosen
interpretation of the preprocessor symbols. It is a more powerful successor to
the FreeBSD 'unifdef' tool.

[Bug 193480] Review Request: sunifdef

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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

Summary: Review Request: sunifdef

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193480

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-06-01 02:03 EST -------
SPEC looks OK but SOURCE compilations gives some warnings

[Bug 193480] Review Request: sunifdef

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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

Summary: Review Request: sunifdef

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193480

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-06-01 03:03 EST -------
# rpmlint sunifdef-*
E: sunifdef description-line-too-long Sunifdef is most useful to developers of
constantly evolving products with large
E: sunifdef-debuginfo script-without-shellbang
/usr/src/debug/sunifdef/src/ptr_vector.c
E: sunifdef-debuginfo wrong-script-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/src/debug/sunifdef/src/ptr_vector.c
E: sunifdef-debuginfo script-without-shellbang
/usr/src/debug/sunifdef/src/ptr_vector.h
E: sunifdef-debuginfo wrong-script-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/src/debug/sunifdef/src/ptr_vector.h
E: sunifdef-debuginfo script-without-shellbang
/usr/src/debug/sunifdef/src/state_utils.c
E: sunifdef-debuginfo wrong-script-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/src/debug/sunifdef/src/state_utils.c

=> Shorten your description

=> Wrong permissions on source files.
Running
find ( -name '*.c' -o -name '*.h' ) -exec chmod -x {} ;
inside of %prep fixes this.

Further issues:
* The "source-tarball" ships an autom4te.cache, i.e. it is rather carelessly
packaged. 
I recommend to remove this autom4te.cache in %prep, in advance to running
configure. I.e. you might consider to
rm -rf autom4te.cache
in %prep

* The "source-tarball" ships a precompiled sunifdef linux binary.
I recommend to remove it in %prep, i.e. consider to add
rm -rf build-bin
to %prep

* The sources contain a test suite. I recommend to add a %check section to the
spec to run it:
%check
make check

* Many of the warnings are "punned pointer" warnings. These should not be taken
lightly. They are an indication that a package contains bad code that can causem
"random" problems caused by side-effects of compiler optimization.

[Bug 193480] Review Request: sunifdef

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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

Summary: Review Request: sunifdef

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193480

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-06-01 07:10 EST -------
Thanks Ralf and Parag for your comments - I will implement all your suggestions
at the weekend.

Regarding the compilation warnings - I have already been in touch with the
author about these, and he's taking a look. I'm in the process of looking
through them myself too, to see if I can offer fixes.

[Bug 193480] Review Request: sunifdef

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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

Summary: Review Request: sunifdef

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193480

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-06-01 09:03 EST -------
(In reply to comment #3)
> Regarding the compilation warnings - I have already been in touch with the
> author about these, and he's taking a look. I'm in the process of looking
> through them myself too, to see if I can offer fixes.

Note: These warnings aren't blockers. I am willing to approve the package
without them being fixed, once the testsuite is enabled.

[Bug 193480] Review Request: sunifdef

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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

Summary: Review Request: sunifdef

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193480

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-06-02 16:02 EST -------
Updated spec and SRPM reflecting all of Ralf's comments:

Spec URL: http://physics.open.ac.uk/~ju83/sunifdef.spec
SRPM URL: http://physics.open.ac.uk/~ju83/sunifdef-1.0-2.src.rpm

Regarding the warnings - the package author has got back to me saying he's fixed
them and will make a release soon, at which point I'll update the source.

[Bug 193480] Review Request: sunifdef

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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

Summary: Review Request: sunifdef

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193480

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|[e-mail] |[e-mail]
OtherBugsDependingO|163776                      |163778
              nThis|                            |

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-06-02 21:43 EST -------
Please put the "make check" into a %check section

--- sunifdef.spec~      2006-06-03 03:30:41.000000000 +0200
+++ sunifdef.spec       2006-06-03 03:30:41.000000000 +0200
@@ -33,6 +33,8 @@
 %build
 %configure
 make %{?_smp_mflags}
+
+%check
 make check

%install

[Bug 193480] Review Request: sunifdef

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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

Summary: Review Request: sunifdef

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193480

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-06-03 11:12 EST -------
Done. I had missed the point about %check before, sorry. I didn't actually know
%check existed. Live and learn.

Spec URL: http://physics.open.ac.uk/~ju83/sunifdef.spec
SRPM URL: http://physics.open.ac.uk/~ju83/sunifdef-1.0-3.src.rpm

[Bug 193480] Review Request: sunifdef

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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

Summary: Review Request: sunifdef

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193480

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OtherBugsDependingO|163778                      |163779
              nThis|                            |

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-06-04 22:09 EST -------
APPROVED

[Bug 193480] Review Request: sunifdef

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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

Summary: Review Request: sunifdef

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193480

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-06-07 11:58 EST -------
Jonathan, would you please close this PR, once the package has been pushed to
the repos (Which AFAIS, already happened), TIA.

[Bug 193480] Review Request: sunifdef

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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

Summary: Review Request: sunifdef

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193480

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |CLOSED
         Resolution|                            |NEXTRELEASE

[Bug 193480] Review Request: sunifdef

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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

Summary: Review Request: sunifdef

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=193480

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Severity|normal                      |medium
           Priority|normal                      |medium
            Product|Fedora Extras               |Fedora
            Version|devel                       |rawhide

[Bug 193480] Review Request: sunifdef

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=193480

Eric Smith  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]
               Flag|                            |fedora-cvs?

--- Comment #10 from Eric Smith  2010-04-06 22:29:40 EDT ---
Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: unifdef
New Branches: F-13
Owners: brouhaha

[Bug 193480] Review Request: sunifdef

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=193480

--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Underwood  2010-04-07 06:03:18 EDT ---
Eric - what?

[Bug 193480] Review Request: sunifdef

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=193480

Eric Smith  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-cvs?                 |

--- Comment #12 from Eric Smith  2010-04-07 10:45:21 EDT ---
Sorry, meant to attach that to the unifdef review request, not sunifdef. 
Please disregard.