https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033970
Bug ID: 1033970 Summary: Review Request: d52 - Disassemblers for 8051, 8048, and Z80 families Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: spacewar@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~brouhaha/d52/d52.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~brouhaha/d52/d52-3.4.1-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: D52 is collection of disassemblers for the 8051, 8048, and Z80 families of microcontrollers and microprocessors. Fedora Account System Username: brouhaha
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033970
Michael Scherer misc@zarb.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |misc@zarb.org Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |misc@zarb.org Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Michael Scherer misc@zarb.org --- Hi,
A few notes : - the url used is not the one given by the documentation, any reason for that ? I am not very confortable by the lack of upstream :/
- if you could add a comment for the patch, that would be nice ( just to follow best practices )
Anyway, that's minor nitpicking, otherwise, the package is good, so approved.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== 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: "Unknown or generated", "GPL (v3 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/1033970-d52/licensecheck.txt [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. [-]: 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 204800 bytes in 7 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 %doc. [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]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [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 do not use a name that already exist [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: [-]: 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]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [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: d52-3.4.1-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm d52-3.4.1-1.fc20.src.rpm d52.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Disassemblers -> Dis assemblers, Dis-assemblers, Disassembles d52.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US disassemblers -> disassembles, dis assemblers, dis-assemblers d52.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US microcontrollers -> micro controllers, micro-controllers, microelectronics d52.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary d52 d52.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary d48 d52.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dz80 d52.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Disassemblers -> Dis assemblers, Dis-assemblers, Disassembles d52.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US disassemblers -> disassembles, dis assemblers, dis-assemblers d52.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US microcontrollers -> micro controllers, micro-controllers, microelectronics 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint d52 d52.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Disassemblers -> Dis assemblers, Dis-assemblers, Disassembles d52.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US disassemblers -> disassembles, dis assemblers, dis-assemblers d52.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US microcontrollers -> micro controllers, micro-controllers, microelectronics d52.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary d52 d52.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary d48 d52.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dz80 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires -------- d52 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides -------- d52: d52 d52(x86-64)
Source checksums ---------------- http://www.brouhaha.com/~eric/software/d52/d52v341.zip : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 784900108a4352fb439f9c9efa9458c93138ed1f05f2e41aa2faca5bc7c76e46 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 784900108a4352fb439f9c9efa9458c93138ed1f05f2e41aa2faca5bc7c76e46
Generated by fedora-review 0.5.0 (920221d) last change: 2013-08-30 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1033970 Buildroot used: fedora-20-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, SugarActivity, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EPEL5, EXARCH, DISTTAG
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033970
--- Comment #2 from Eric Smith spacewar@gmail.com ---
the url used is not the one given by the documentation, any reason for that ?
The URL in the docs doesn't work. The 8052.com site that hosted the home page had a failure that resulted in the loss of the page, and has dropped hosting for third-party stuff, so for some time the program hasn't had a URL. With permission of the author, I copied the old web page to my web site.
I am not very confortable by the lack of upstream :/
The author is still around, but the software is mature, so there hasn't been ongoing development. I use this program a fair bit. If any issues arise, I expect the author is willing to deal with them, but if not, I can maintain it myself. (Unlike some other programs I've packaged for which I'm completely dependent on upstream for bug fixes.)
if you could add a comment for the patch, that would be nice ( just to follow best practices )
Good idea. Done:
Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~brouhaha/d52/d52.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~brouhaha/d52/d52-3.4.1-2.fc19.src.rpm
Thanks for the review!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033970
Eric Smith spacewar@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #3 from Eric Smith spacewar@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: d52 Short Description: Disassemblers for 8051, 8048, and Z80 families Owners: brouhaha Branches: f18 f19 f20 el6 InitialCC:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033970
Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033970
--- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033970
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033970
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- d52-3.4.1-2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/d52-3.4.1-2.fc20
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033970
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- d52-3.4.1-2.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/d52-3.4.1-2.fc19
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033970
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- d52-3.4.1-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/d52-3.4.1-2.el6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033970
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- d52-3.4.1-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033970
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |d52-3.4.1-2.fc20 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2013-12-27 21:05:04
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- d52-3.4.1-2.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033970
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|d52-3.4.1-2.fc20 |d52-3.4.1-2.fc19
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- d52-3.4.1-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033970
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|d52-3.4.1-2.fc19 |d52-3.4.1-2.el6
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- d52-3.4.1-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla