[Bug 1273065] New: Review Request: vtable-dumper - Tool to list content of virtual tables in a C++ shared library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1273065
Bug ID: 1273065 Summary: Review Request: vtable-dumper - Tool to list content of virtual tables in a C++ shared library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: hobbes1069@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: http://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org//vtable-dumper.spec SRPM URL: http://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org//vtable-dumper-1.1-1.fc21.src.rpm
Description: Vtable-Dumper is a tool to list content of virtual tables in a C++ shared library. It is intended for developers of software libraries and maintainers of Linux distributions who are interested in ensuring backward binary compatibility.
The tool is developed by Andrey Ponomarenko: http://abi-laboratory.pro/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1273065
--- Comment #1 from Richard Shaw hobbes1069@gmail.com --- Scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11499922
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1273065
Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |orion@cora.nwra.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |orion@cora.nwra.com Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1273065
--- Comment #2 from Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com --- See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL?rd=Packaging/SourceURL#Gi...
So:
Source0: https://github.com/lvc/%%7Bname%7D/archive/%%7Bversion%7D.tar.gz#/%%7Bname%7...
It's probably worth asking for clarification on the license - there is no mention of which version of the GPL/LGPL, or of "any later version".
More later but fedora-review is not behaving on my machine at this moment.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1273065
--- Comment #3 from Richard Shaw hobbes1069@gmail.com ---
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL?rd=Packaging/ SourceURL#Git_Tags
So:
Source0: https://github.com/lvc/%%7Bname%7D/archive/%%7Bversion%7D.tar.gz#/%%7Bname%7.... tar.gz
Great! I didn't know they had updated the guidelines to something much more sane than the one with the full 40 digit hash tag in the name. I've got a project that creates 230MB build logs due to the bloat.(In reply to Orion Poplawski from comment #2)
It's probably worth asking for clarification on the license - there is no mention of which version of the GPL/LGPL, or of "any later version".
I struggled with that as well but looking at the license guidelines, if it doesn't attribute to a specific version it defaults to any version.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1273065
Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
- I'll note that at the moment, %{?_smp_mflags} is useless since there is only one make command. - I'm assuming you'll fix Source0
APPROVED
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL", "Unknown or generated". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /export/home/orion/redhat/1273065 -vtable-dumper/licensecheck.txt [x]: 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. [-]: 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. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: 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 10240 bytes in 1 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]: 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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [-]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [-]: 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: 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]: 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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: vtable-dumper-1.1-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm vtable-dumper-1.1-1.fc24.src.rpm vtable-dumper.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vtable-dumper vtable-dumper.src:11: W: macro-in-comment %{name} vtable-dumper.src:11: W: macro-in-comment %{version} vtable-dumper.src: W: invalid-url Source0: vtable-dumper-1.1.tar.gz 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: vtable-dumper-debuginfo-1.1-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory vtable-dumper.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vtable-dumper 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Requires -------- vtable-dumper (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libelf.so.1()(64bit) libelf.so.1(ELFUTILS_1.0)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides -------- vtable-dumper: vtable-dumper vtable-dumper(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -b 1273065 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1273065
--- Comment #5 from Richard Shaw hobbes1069@gmail.com --- Yes, I've already fixed it on my end but didn't figure it was worth posting a new spec and srpm for that one.
Thanks for the review!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1273065
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- vtable-dumper-1.1-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-617b46ea8d
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1273065
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- vtable-dumper-1.1-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-617b46ea8d
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1273065
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- vtable-dumper-1.1-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 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 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update vtable-dumper' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-617b46ea8d
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1273065
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- vtable-dumper-1.1-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 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 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update vtable-dumper' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-84195b639e
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1273065
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- vtable-dumper-1.1-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1273065
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2015-10-31 22:31:51
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1273065
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- vtable-dumper-1.1-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla