[Bug 577152] New: Review Request: apiextractor - Library headers parser to extract API information
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: apiextractor - Library headers parser to extract API information
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=577152
Summary: Review Request: apiextractor - Library headers parser to extract API information Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: kalev@smartlink.ee QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: http://kalev.fedorapeople.org/apiextractor.spec SRPM URL: http://kalev.fedorapeople.org/apiextractor-0.4.0-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: The API Extractor library is used by the binding generator to parse headers of a given library and merge this data with information provided by typesystem (XML) files, resulting in a representation of how the API should be exported to the chosen target language. The generation of source code for the bindings is performed by specific generators using the API Extractor library.
Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2076874
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=577152
Chen Lei supercyper@163.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |supercyper@163.com
--- Comment #1 from Chen Lei supercyper@163.com 2010-03-26 13:29:55 EDT --- Hi Kalev,
Would you be interested in packaging the whole pyside set? BTW, %{_libdir}/cmake/ApiExtractor-%{version}/ seems not the right place for cmake modules.
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=577152
--- Comment #2 from Kalev Lember kalev@smartlink.ee 2010-03-26 15:36:27 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1)
Would you be interested in packaging the whole pyside set?
Yes, that's my plan. Would you be interested in reviewing the whole set?
BTW, %{_libdir}/cmake/ApiExtractor-%{version}/ seems not the right place for cmake modules.
This is the place where cmake-aware projects put their arch-specific configuration [1] (the files may contain references to %{_libdir}, for example). The directory %{_libdir}/cmake/ is roughly similar to %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/ -- both are placed under %{_libdir} for the same reason. Several KDE packages install files in this directory and Fedora cmake package recently started owning the directory [2].
[1] http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_2.6_Notes#Packages [2] http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/cmake/devel/cmake.spec?r1=1.76&...
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=577152
--- Comment #3 from Chen Lei supercyper@163.com 2010-03-27 07:41:34 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2)
(In reply to comment #1)
Would you be interested in packaging the whole pyside set?
Yes, that's my plan. Would you be interested in reviewing the whole set?
BTW, %{_libdir}/cmake/ApiExtractor-%{version}/ seems not the right place for cmake modules.
This is the place where cmake-aware projects put their arch-specific configuration [1] (the files may contain references to %{_libdir}, for example). The directory %{_libdir}/cmake/ is roughly similar to %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/ -- both are placed under %{_libdir} for the same reason. Several KDE packages install files in this directory and Fedora cmake package recently started owning the directory [2]. [1] http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_2.6_Notes#Packages [2] http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/cmake/devel/cmake.spec?r1=1.76&...
Thanks for clarification. currently fedora doesn't have a packaging guideline according to cmake modules(even a draft), so I'm a little confusion about this, historically cmake package didn't own {_libdir}/cmake and some packages store cmake modules on %{_datadir}/cmake/%{name} (e.g. boost 1.41).
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=577152
--- Comment #4 from Kalev Lember kalev@smartlink.ee 2010-03-27 08:03:08 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3)
Thanks for clarification. currently fedora doesn't have a packaging guideline according to cmake modules(even a draft), so I'm a little confusion about this, historically cmake package didn't own {_libdir}/cmake and some packages store cmake modules on %{_datadir}/cmake/%{name} (e.g. boost 1.41).
Right, cmake searches in both %{_datadir}/cmake/ and %{_libdir}/cmake/ (and some more places), it's just that you can't put arch-specific configuration in %{_datadir}.
Just for reference I looked up what packages install in these directories.
Packages which install cmake modules in %{_datadir}/cmake/: shared-desktop-ontologies-devel boost-devel
Packages which install cmake modules in %{_libdir}/cmake/: kdepimlibs-devel kdevplatform-devel kdebase-workspace-devel akonadi-devel
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=577152
--- Comment #5 from Chen Lei supercyper@163.com 2010-03-28 08:05:56 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2)
(In reply to comment #1)
Would you be interested in packaging the whole pyside set?
Yes, that's my plan. Would you be interested in reviewing the whole set?
I'd like to review pyside set several weeks later after I finish package reviews that were assigned to me already.
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=577152
--- Comment #6 from Kalev Lember kalev@smartlink.ee 2010-06-15 22:45:01 EDT --- Updated to 0.6.0.
Spec URL: http://kalev.fedorapeople.org/apiextractor.spec SRPM URL: http://kalev.fedorapeople.org/apiextractor-0.6.0-1.fc14.src.rpm
Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2252774
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=577152
Kalev Lember kalev@smartlink.ee changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |604695
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=577152
Jonathan Steffan jonathansteffan@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jonathansteffan@gmail.com Flag| |needinfo?(kalev@smartlink.e | |e)
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Steffan jonathansteffan@gmail.com 2010-06-19 18:54:49 EDT --- apiextractor.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US typesystem -> type system, type-system, typesetter apiextractor.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US typesystem -> type system, type-system, typesetter apiextractor-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review.
Please update spec to include the spelling fixes. The no-documentation warning is something that should be addressed. Maybe ship the "doc" folder in the -devel subpackage as %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=577152
Kalev Lember kalev@smartlink.ee changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(kalev@smartlink.e | |e) |
--- Comment #8 from Kalev Lember kalev@smartlink.ee 2010-06-19 19:18:47 EDT --- * Sun Jun 20 2010 Kalev Lember kalev@smartlink.ee - 0.6.0-2 - Build html documentation and ship it in -devel subpackage - typo fix in description
Spec URL: http://kalev.fedorapeople.org/apiextractor.spec SRPM URL: http://kalev.fedorapeople.org/apiextractor-0.6.0-2.fc14.src.rpm
Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2259495
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=577152
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Steffan jonathansteffan@gmail.com 2010-06-19 19:25:39 EDT --- apiextractor-devel.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/apiextractor-devel-0.6.0/html/.buildinfo 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Please remove this directory.
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=577152
--- Comment #10 from Kalev Lember kalev@smartlink.ee 2010-06-19 19:33:54 EDT --- * Sun Jun 20 2010 Kalev Lember kalev@smartlink.ee - 0.6.0-3 - Removed .buildinfo file from documentation directory
Spec URL: http://kalev.fedorapeople.org/apiextractor.spec SRPM URL: http://kalev.fedorapeople.org/apiextractor-0.6.0-3.fc14.src.rpm
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=577152
Jonathan Steffan jonathansteffan@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |jonathansteffan@gmail.com Flag| |fedora-review?
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=577152
Jonathan Steffan jonathansteffan@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Steffan jonathansteffan@gmail.com 2010-06-19 19:44:04 EDT --- 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Looks good. Passes all MUSTS and all SHOULDS.
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=577152
Kalev Lember kalev@smartlink.ee changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #12 from Kalev Lember kalev@smartlink.ee 2010-06-19 20:12:13 EDT --- Thank you for the review, Jonathan!
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: apiextractor Short Description: Library headers parser to extract API information Owners: kalev Branches: F-13 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=577152
--- Comment #13 from Chen Lei supercyper1@gmail.com 2010-06-19 22:15:39 EDT --- Some suggestions:
Group for apoextractor should be Group: System Environment/Libraries, Development/Libraries is for -devel only.
Also, some rpm warnings can be ignored, e.g. spelling-error, it's Okay.
I noticed apiextractor rpm for opensuse patched the place of cmake modules from %{_libdir}/cmake/ApiExtractor-%{version}/ to %{_libdir}/cmake/ApiExtractor, I' not sure if it's needed.
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=577152
--- Comment #14 from Kalev Lember kalev@smartlink.ee 2010-06-20 06:26:38 EDT --- (In reply to comment #13)
Group for apoextractor should be Group: System Environment/Libraries, Development/Libraries is for -devel only.
I'll change that, thanks.
By the way, do you know of any Fedora guidelines for choosing RPM groups? I guess there are none, since RPM groups are pretty much obsoleted by comps.
I noticed apiextractor rpm for opensuse patched the place of cmake modules from %{_libdir}/cmake/ApiExtractor-%{version}/ to %{_libdir}/cmake/ApiExtractor, I' not sure if it's needed.
No idea why they would want to do that. CMake searches both directories for module configuration files, so there is really no advantage using one over other.
Do you have a link to that opensuse 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=577152
--- Comment #15 from Kalev Lember kalev@smartlink.ee 2010-06-20 07:01:29 EDT --- Updated owners list.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: apiextractor Short Description: Library headers parser to extract API information Owners: kalev rdieter kkofler than ltinkl Branches: F-13 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=577152
Chen Lei supercyper1@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #16 from Chen Lei supercyper1@gmail.com 2010-06-20 07:46:07 EDT --- (In reply to comment #14)
(In reply to comment #13)
Group for apoextractor should be Group: System Environment/Libraries, Development/Libraries is for -devel only.
I'll change that, thanks. By the way, do you know of any Fedora guidelines for choosing RPM groups? I guess there are none, since RPM groups are pretty much obsoleted by comps.
NO guideline as I known, but comps can not replace rpm group because most libraries are not registerd in comps.
I noticed apiextractor rpm for opensuse patched the place of cmake modules from %{_libdir}/cmake/ApiExtractor-%{version}/ to %{_libdir}/cmake/ApiExtractor, I' not sure if it's needed.
No idea why they would want to do that. CMake searches both directories for module configuration files, so there is really no advantage using one over other. Do you have a link to that opensuse package?
No difference between the two places for cmake modules I think, but we still need a convention to treat cmake modules.
See http://www.pyside.org/downloads/
http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/home:/cgoncalves:/pyside:/
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=577152
--- Comment #17 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com 2010-06-20 21:55:14 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=577152
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-06-21 00:53:56 EDT --- apiextractor-0.6.0-4.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/apiextractor-0.6.0-4.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=577152
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |ON_QA
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-06-21 17:28:11 EDT --- apiextractor-0.6.0-4.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 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 apiextractor'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/apiextractor-0.6.0-4.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=577152
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-06-29 11:38:11 EDT --- apiextractor-0.6.0-4.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 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=577152
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |apiextractor-0.6.0-4.fc13 Resolution| |ERRATA
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla