Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: <main package name here> - <short summary here>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=527402
Summary: Review Request: <main package name here> - <short summary here> Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: tejasdinkar@gmail.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: http://tejas.fedorapeople.org/gmock.spec SRPM URL: http://tejas.fedorapeople.org/gmock-1.4.0-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: Inspired by jMock, EasyMock, and Hamcrest, and designed with C++'s specifics in mind, Google C++ Mocking Framework (or Google Mock for short) is a library for writing and using C++ mock classes. Google Mock: * lets you create mock classes trivially using simple macros, * supports a rich set of matchers and actions, * handles unordered, partially ordered, or completely ordered expectations, * is extensible by users, and * works on Linux, Mac OS X, Windows, Windows Mobile, minGW, and Symbian.
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=527402
Itamar Reis Peixoto itamar@ispbrasil.com.br changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |itamar@ispbrasil.com.br Summary|Review Request: <main |Review Request: gmock - |package name here> - <short |Google C++ Mocking |summary here> |Framework
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=527402
Martin Gieseking martin.gieseking@uos.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |martin.gieseking@uos.de
--- Comment #1 from Martin Gieseking martin.gieseking@uos.de 2009-10-07 11:45:24 EDT --- A couple of comments:
- you must probably add Requires: gtest >= 1.4.0 because it's not recognized automatically
- is the required gtest version always greater or equal than the version of gmock? If not, I'd suggest to replace BR:gtest-devel >= %{version} by BR:gtest-devel >= 1.4.0
- the lines in the %description section shouldn't exceed 80 characters
- add the version and revision number to the first line of the changelog entry: Sun Oct 4 2009 Tejas Dinkar tejas@gja.in - 1.4.0-1
$ rpmlint /home/mgieseki/rpmbuild/RPMS/i586/gmock-* gmock.i586: E: description-line-too-long Inspired by jMock, EasyMock, and Hamcrest, and designed with C++'s specifics in mind, gmock.i586: E: description-line-too-long Google C++ Mocking Framework (or Google Mock for short) is a library for writing and using C++ mock classes. Google Mock: gmock.i586: W: no-version-in-last-changelog gmock.i586: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libgmock.so.0.0.0 _exit@GLIBC_2.0 gmock-debuginfo.i586: W: no-version-in-last-changelog gmock-devel.i586: W: no-version-in-last-changelog gmock-devel.i586: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 5 warnings.
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=527402
Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |bos@serpentine.com
--- Comment #2 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2009-11-20 21:59:16 EDT --- *** Bug 539613 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
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=527402
Terje Røsten terjeros@phys.ntnu.no changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |terjeros@phys.ntnu.no
--- Comment #3 from Terje Røsten terjeros@phys.ntnu.no 2009-11-23 04:36:19 EDT --- You may want to open a bugzilla ticket to get the gtest package in Fedora updated to 1.4, current version in Fedora is gtest 1.3.0-1.20090601svn257.
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=527402
--- Comment #4 from Rakesh Pandit rpandit@redhat.com 2010-01-08 05:56:52 EDT --- ping Tejas,
Any updates on this one ? It has been 2-3 months with no update.
Thanks,
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=527402
Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fedora@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |oget.fedora@gmail.com
--- Comment #5 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fedora@gmail.com 2010-07-17 13:10:38 EDT --- ping 2? Did you give up? Shall we close the bug?
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=527402
Matt Rogers mattr@kde.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mattr@kde.org
--- Comment #6 from Matt Rogers mattr@kde.org 2010-08-11 00:10:12 EDT --- Spec URL: http://mattr.info:8080/gmock.spec SRPM URL: http://mattr.info:8080/gmock-1.4.0-2.fc13.src.rpm
Addressed comments in previous review. Here's the output from rpmlint:
gmock.i686: W: no-version-in-last-changelog gmock.i686: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libgmock.so.0.0.0 _exit@GLIBC_2.0 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Not updating to gmock 1.5.0 yet, since it requires gtest 1.5.0 and fedora hasn't updated to that version yet.
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=527402
Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fedora@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |oget.fedora@gmail.com Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #7 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fedora@gmail.com 2010-08-30 02:36:19 EDT --- Here is the full review:
* rpmlint says: gmock.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US jMock -> j Mock, jock, mock gmock.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US matchers -> marchers, matcher, matches gmock.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US minGW -> mingy, Mingus, mingle gmock.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://googlemock.googlecode.com/files/gmock-1.4.0.tar.bz2 HTTP Error 404: Not Found gmock-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gmock-config gmock-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gmock_doctor.py gmock-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation These can be ignored. You can ask upstream about manpages. gmock.src: W: no-version-in-last-changelog gmock.src:86: W: macro-in-comment %{_datadir} gmock.src:86: W: macro-in-comment %{name} gmock.src:14: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 14, tab: line 1) These need to be fixed. gmock.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libgmock.so.0.0.0 _exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 Any explanation for this one?
! It looks like the Group for the main packages should be "System Environment/Libraries"
! The lines %dir %{_includedir}/%{name} %{_includedir}/%{name}/*.h %{_includedir}/%{name}/internal could be shortened to %{_includedir}/%{name}
! In the specfile you use "gmock" and "%{name}" interchangably, which breaks marco consistency.
! The standard way of getting rid of rpath is via %configure sed -i 's|^hardcode_libdir_flag_spec=.*|hardcode_libdir_flag_spec=""|g' libtool sed -i 's|^runpath_var=LD_RUN_PATH|runpath_var=DIE_RPATH_DIE|g' libtool which will also save you a BR. The use of chrpath is left as a last resort.
? On the devel packages why do we have Requires: automake
* The tests fail via g++ -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic -o test/.libs/gmock-actions_test test/gmock-actions_test.o -L/usr/lib64 -lgtest lib/.libs/libgmock_main.so -Wl,--rpath -Wl,/usr/lib64 /usr/bin/ld: test/gmock-actions_test.o: undefined reference to symbol 'testing::internal::ExpectationBase::RetireAllPreRequisites()' /usr/bin/ld: note: 'testing::internal::ExpectationBase::RetireAllPreRequisites()' is defined in DSO /builddir/build/BUILD/gmock-1.4.0/lib/.libs/libgmock.so.0 so try adding it to the linker command line /builddir/build/BUILD/gmock-1.4.0/lib/.libs/libgmock.so.0: could not read symbols: Invalid operation collect2: ld returned 1 exit status The undefined reference error can be fixed by adding a lib/.libs/libgmock.so to the compilation line.
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=527402
--- Comment #8 from Martin Gieseking martin.gieseking@uos.de 2010-08-30 09:37:08 EDT --- Since Tejas doesn't seem to be interested in this package any longer, Matt should open a new review request and close this one as a duplicate (because the bug reporter and the package maintainer should be the same person).
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=527402
--- Comment #9 from Martin Gieseking martin.gieseking@uos.de 2010-08-30 10:01:09 EDT --- Also, Matt probably has to be sponsored first, as I can't find his email address in FAS.
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=527402
--- Comment #10 from Matt Rogers mattr@kde.org 2010-08-30 10:08:19 EDT --- Yes, I recently became aware of both of the above. I'm working on other things at the moment and will file a new review request soon.
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=527402
--- Comment #11 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fedora@gmail.com 2010-08-30 11:34:35 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8)
bug reporter and the package maintainer should be the same person).
Any references? I know review request bugs where this was not true. Bug 456353, Bug 444366, ... etc
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=527402
--- Comment #12 from Martin Gieseking martin.gieseking@uos.de 2010-08-30 11:58:20 EDT --- (In reply to comment #11)
Any references? I know review request bugs where this was not true. Bug 456353, Bug 444366, ... etc
Yes, see [1] for example. It was also mentioned here several times (e.g. in bug #566405). Of course, there might be some cases where review requests were "hijacked", but that shouldn't had happened.
[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Policy#Submitter_not_respon...
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=527402
--- Comment #13 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fedora@gmail.com 2010-08-30 12:07:39 EDT --- Yes. Sorry, for some reason I thought Tejas responded and gave up with the package explicitly. I probably confused this with some other package. Thanks for the reminder.
Matt, please open a new review request bug, make it block FE-NEEDSPONSOR, and close this bug as a duplicate of the new bug.
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=527402
Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fedora@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |needinfo?(mattr@kde.org)
--- Comment #14 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fedora@gmail.com 2010-09-25 19:03:19 EDT --- Matt, what is the status on this? Are you still interested?
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=527402
Matt Rogers mattr@kde.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(mattr@kde.org) |
--- Comment #15 from Matt Rogers mattr@kde.org 2010-09-27 21:58:39 EDT --- yes, still interested. busy with other things ATM. Will file another review request bug when I get around to this again.
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=527402
--- Comment #16 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fedora@gmail.com 2010-11-06 02:33:49 EDT --- Shall we close this bug, as the original submitter does not seem interested anymore?
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=527402
Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Blocks| |201449(FE-DEADREVIEW) Resolution| |NOTABUG Last Closed| |2010-11-06 09:02:17
--- Comment #17 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2010-11-06 09:02:17 EDT --- Sure looks like there hasn't been any response at all by the original submitter, and it's been over a year. I'll close it out. It's too bad that someone else also wanted to submit this package but this one was submitted first.
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=527402
Terje Røsten terjeros@phys.ntnu.no changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- See Also| |https://bugzilla.redhat.com | |/show_bug.cgi?id=676930
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla