https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989112
Bug ID: 989112 Summary: Review Request: gmqcc - Improved Quake C Compiler Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: i.gnatenko.brain@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: http://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/gmqcc.spec SRPM URL: http://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/gmqcc-0.2.9-1.fc20.src.rpm Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5664261 Description:
GMQCC: Modern written-from-scratch compiler for the QuakeC language with support for many common features found in other QC compilers.
QCVM: Executor for QuakeC VM binary files created using a QC compiler such as gmqcc or fteqcc. It provides a small set of builtin functions, and by default executes the main function if there is one. Some options useful for debugging are available as well. Fedora Account System Username: ignatenkobrain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989112
Björn Esser bjoern.esser@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |bjoern.esser@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |bjoern.esser@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Björn Esser bjoern.esser@gmail.com --- Some issue are present. :( See comments in report.
#####
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. [!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
---> add this to spec-file:
%prep ... # rpmlint complains about 'configure-without-libdir-spec' which # you can safely ignore, because we are creating a dummy-configure # here, just for %%configure exporting the proper # compiler/linker-flags from redhat-rpm-config. # echo '#!/bin/sh' > ./configure chmod +x ./configure
%build %configure ...
[?]: 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 [-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in qcvm
---> not needed, will be usable standalone
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
---> issues are present
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/989112-gmqcc/licensecheck.txt
---> License-tag is fine
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (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. [-]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [!]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
---> s/builtin/built-in
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 8 files. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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]: 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 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 [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).
===== 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. [-]: 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. [x]: %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. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Uses parallel make. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: gmqcc-0.2.9-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm qcvm-0.2.9-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm qcvm.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gmqcc qcvm.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fteqcc qcvm.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US builtin -> built in, built-in, built 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint qcvm gmqcc qcvm.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gmqcc qcvm.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fteqcc qcvm.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US builtin -> built in, built-in, built 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires -------- qcvm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
gmqcc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides -------- qcvm: qcvm qcvm(x86-64)
gmqcc: gmqcc gmqcc(x86-64)
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/graphitemaster/gmqcc/archive/0.2.9.tar.gz#/gmqcc-0.2.9.ta... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e1c0960a7ed232d04c970eacd75afa32e9cef391ea05a386943bbb39e7e2b4f8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e1c0960a7ed232d04c970eacd75afa32e9cef391ea05a386943bbb39e7e2b4f8
Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 989112
#####
Fix those two issues and I'll take another run.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989112
--- Comment #2 from Igor Gnatenko i.gnatenko.brain@gmail.com --- new spec: http://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/gmqcc.spec koji task: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5664763
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989112
--- Comment #3 from Igor Gnatenko i.gnatenko.brain@gmail.com --- new spec: http://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/gmqcc.spec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989112
--- Comment #4 from Igor Gnatenko i.gnatenko.brain@gmail.com --- new spec: http://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/gmqcc.spec new SRPM: http://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/gmqcc-0.2.9-1.fc19.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989112
Björn Esser bjoern.esser@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Björn Esser bjoern.esser@gmail.com --- Package is fine now! :)
#####
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]: %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 [-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in qcvm
---> false positive, not needed
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/989112-gmqcc/licensecheck.txt
---> License is fine
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (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. [-]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 51200 bytes in 11 files. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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]: 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 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 [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).
===== 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.
---> taken from sources, will be upstream in next release
[-]: 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. [x]: %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. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Uses parallel make. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: gmqcc-0.2.9-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm qcvm-0.2.9-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm qcvm.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gmqcc qcvm.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fteqcc 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint qcvm gmqcc qcvm.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gmqcc qcvm.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fteqcc 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires -------- qcvm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
gmqcc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides -------- qcvm: qcvm qcvm(x86-64)
gmqcc: gmqcc gmqcc(x86-64)
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/graphitemaster/gmqcc/archive/0.2.9.tar.gz#/gmqcc-0.2.9.ta... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e1c0960a7ed232d04c970eacd75afa32e9cef391ea05a386943bbb39e7e2b4f8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e1c0960a7ed232d04c970eacd75afa32e9cef391ea05a386943bbb39e7e2b4f8
Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 989112
#####
APPROVED!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989112
Igor Gnatenko i.gnatenko.brain@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #6 from Igor Gnatenko i.gnatenko.brain@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: gmqcc Short Description: Improved Quake C Compiler Owners: ignatenkobrain Branches: f19 InitialCC: ignatenkobrain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989112
Dennis Gilmore dennis@ausil.us changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989112
--- Comment #7 from Dennis Gilmore dennis@ausil.us --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989112
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989112
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- gmqcc-0.2.9-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gmqcc-0.2.9-1.fc19
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989112
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- gmqcc-0.2.9-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989112
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |gmqcc-0.2.9-1.fc19 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2013-08-05 20:13:27
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- gmqcc-0.2.9-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla