Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220393
Summary: Review Request: Synopsis - Source-code Introspection Tool Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: seefeld@sympatico.ca QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com
Spec URL: Part of the source tarball at http://synopsis.fresco.org/download/ (Current release is http://synopsis.fresco.org/download/synopsis-0.9.tar.gz)
Description:
Synopsis is a multi-language source code introspection tool that provides a variety of representations for the parsed code, to enable further processing such as documentation extraction, reverse engineering, and source-to-source translation.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: Synopsis - Source-code Introspection Tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220393
panemade@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |panemade@gmail.com
------- Additional Comments From panemade@gmail.com 2006-12-20 23:08 EST ------- Kindly submit SPEC as well as SRPM URL.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: Synopsis - Source-code Introspection Tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220393
------- Additional Comments From seefeld@sympatico.ca 2006-12-21 09:18 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=144183) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=144183&action=vie...) rpm spec file
Please find attached the spec file. It is also included in the released source tarball, so 'rpmbuild -ta synopsis-0.9.tar.gz' works fine, too.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: Synopsis - Source-code Introspection Tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220393
------- Additional Comments From mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2006-12-26 02:19 EST ------- I have to say that the spec file included in source tarball is far from ones which can be accepted into Fedora Extras.
Please write spec file of this package by yourself according to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: Synopsis - Source-code Introspection Tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220393
------- Additional Comments From seefeld@sympatico.ca 2006-12-27 17:01 EST ------- I did write the spec file myself, and validated the generated packages with rpmlint. (In fact, I started by using python's own rpm packaging tools, i.e. distutils / build_rpm, and then applied manual modifications to customize the generated spec file to obtain the desired sub-packages as required by the project structure.)
I would appreciate if you could provide some detail as to what aspects of the packaging guidelines the existing spec file violates.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: Synopsis - Source-code Introspection Tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220393
mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp
------- Additional Comments From mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2006-12-28 21:09 EST ------- Well, I must say that there are a lot of issues to be fixed... I didn't check this package fully, only just pointing out what should be fixed.
Details are written on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines
!! I just glanced at a spec file and only did a quick check, not checked fully !
A. From Summary to %description *Release tag - Use %?dist tag * Source0 - Specify URL * BuildRoot - Check the recommended BuildRoot * Prefix/Vendor - Both are forbidden for Fedora * BuildRequiers - This package cannot be rebuild by mockbuild. Please check the BuildRequires (I attach a mockbuild log) * Isn't the description of License for -idl package is redundant?
B. %prep * %setup - %setup stage is not quiet
C. %build * Fedora specific compilation flags are not passed (I attach a build log) ------------------------------------------------------------- generating dependencies for tools/display-symbols.cc /bin/sh -ec 'g++ -M -I . -I /home/tasaka1/rpmbuild/BUILD/synopsis-0.9/src -I /home/tasaka1/rpmbuild/BUILD/synopsis-0.9/src/Synopsis/gc/include /home/tasaka1/rpmbuild/BUILD/synopsis-0.9/src/tools/display-symbols.cc | sed "s,display-symbols\.o[ :]*,tools/display-symbols\.d tools/display-symbols\.o : ,g" > tools/display-symbols.d' -------------------------------------------------------------
D. %install * Before installing, $RPM_BUILD_ROOT must be cleaned first.
E. %post/%postun * Please do not make this package invoke unnecessary shell process (use "%post -p /sbin/ldconfig")
F %files * Usually libraries in %{_libdir} should have sominor (not a blocker, however would you contact upsteam?) * Directory ownership is not proper. For example, %{py_sitedir}/Synopsis/ is not owned by any package. * -devel package with pkgconfig .pc files should have "Requires: pkgconfig" * All documentations should be moved to %{_datadir}/doc/%{name}-%{version} * Perhaps 3 files ------------------------------------------ README COPYING NEWS ------------------------------------------ are installed twice by main and -doc package (these should in main)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: Synopsis - Source-code Introspection Tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220393
------- Additional Comments From mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2006-12-28 21:13 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=144516) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=144516&action=vie...) Mock build log of synopsis-0.9-1
mock build log of synopsis-0.9-1 on FC-devel i386
* NOTE: ------------------------------------------- distutils.errors.DistutilsPlatformError: invalid Python installation: unable to open /usr/include/python2.5/pyconfig-32.h (No such file or directory)
-------------------------------------------- means that this package needs python-devel for BuildRequires.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: Synopsis - Source-code Introspection Tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220393
------- Additional Comments From mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2006-12-28 21:18 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=144517) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=144517&action=vie...) rpmbuild log of synopsis-0.9-1
rpmbuild log of synopis-0.9-1 on FC-devel i386
Please ensure that Fedora specific compilation flags are correctly passed NOTE: "Fedora specific compilation flags" can be shown by: ------------------------------------------------------ [tasaka1@localhost synopsis]$ rpm --eval %optflags -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m32 -march=i386 -mtune=generic -fasynchronous-unwind-tables ------------------------------------------------------
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: Synopsis - Source-code Introspection Tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220393
seefeld@sympatico.ca changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #144183|0 |1 is obsolete| |
------- Additional Comments From seefeld@sympatico.ca 2007-01-02 23:30 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=144682) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=144682&action=vie...) rpm spec file
This new spec file addresses most of the points you have been making. I'm not sure about point E. Should I replace the whole %post block with a single line '%post -p /sbin/ldconfig' (And likewise for %postun) ?
Where can I find proper documentation for that syntax / command ?
Thanks, Stefan
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: synopsis - Source-code Introspection Tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220393
mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: Synopsis - |Review Request: synopsis - |Source-code Introspection |Source-code Introspection |Tool |Tool
------- Additional Comments From mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-01-03 12:15 EST ------- Well, still needs a lot of fixes. Please read the URLs I have already introduced.
* Perhaps this package should use python_sitearch, not python_sitelib (see: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python)
* Check Group. In my opinion: main package - Development/Tools devel package - Development/Libraries (rather mandatory) doc - Documentation (rather mandatory)
* As I commented above, move all documentation files from /usr/share/doc/Synopsis to /usr/share/doc/%{name}-%{version}.
And.. 3 files "README COPYING NEWS" are included in both main package and -doc package (should be only in -main package)
* Still Fedora specific compilation flags are not complitely passed. (Using CPPFLAGS as well as CFLAGS, CXXFLAGS seems to work).
* Still mockbuild fails. For me, another requirement of "pkgconfig" for BuildRequires seems to work.
* Still directory ownership issue is not treated completely. (%{py_sitedir}/Synopsis/Parsers is now owned by any package) Please check if all directories created during installation of synopsis related rpms are owned correctly by packages.
* The usage of -p option of %post/%postun is on the section "Shared libraries" of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets
* Would you explain why you create another "-idl" package? "Requires" for main package and -idl package are currently same, so currently creating -idl subpackage creates no benefit.
* Rpmlint complains: ------------------------------------------------------------ W: synopsis-devel summary-ended-with-dot The Synopsis development environment. ------------------------------------------------------------ Summary should not end with a dot.
Note: when you modify spec file with no "Version" change, please increase "Release" number.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: synopsis - Source-code Introspection Tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220393
------- Additional Comments From mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-01-03 12:21 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=144720) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=144720&action=vie...) Mock build log of (new) synopsis-0.9-1
Mockbuild log of (new) synopsis-0.9-1 on FC-devel i386.
You can see: ----------------------------------------------- 675 checking for suffix of object files... o 676 checking whether we are using the GNU C++ compiler... yes 677 checking whether g++ accepts -g... yes 678 /builddir/build/BUILD/synopsis-0.9/tests/configure: line 1844: pkg-config: command not found 679 /builddir/build/BUILD/synopsis-0.9/tests/configure: line 1845: pkg-config: command not found 680 checking for ... /usr/bin/python 681 configure: creating ./config.status 682 config.status: creating QMTest/configuration -------------------------------------------------------
Also: ------------------------------------------------------- 728 make: Entering directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/synopsis-0.9/build/ctemp.linux-i686/src' 729 generating dependencies for tools/display-symbols.cc 730 /bin/sh -ec 'g++ -M -I . -I /builddir/build/BUILD/synopsis-0.9/src -I /builddir/build/BUILD/synopsis-0.9/src/Synopsis/gc/include /builddir/build/BUILD/synopsis-0.9/src/tools/display-symbols.cc | sed "s,display-symbols\.o[ :]*,tools/display-symbols\.d tools/display-symbols\.o : ,g" > tools/display-symbols.d' ----------------------------------------------------------------
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: synopsis - Source-code Introspection Tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220393
mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |NEEDINFO OtherBugsDependingO| |177841 nThis| | Flag| |needinfo?(seefeld@sympatico. | |ca)
------- Additional Comments From mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-01-17 14:51 EST ------- ping?
Also, assuming that this is your first package (according to bugzilla entry), I mark this as FE-NEEDSPNSOR.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: synopsis - Source-code Introspection Tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220393
------- Additional Comments From mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-01-27 01:53 EST ------- ping again?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: synopsis - Source-code Introspection Tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220393
seefeld@sympatico.ca changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?(seefeld@sympatico.| |ca) |
------- Additional Comments From seefeld@sympatico.ca 2007-01-28 10:04 EST ------- Sorry for the lack of feedback. I'v got bug-reports concerning Python 2.5 on some 64-bit architectures, and so I'm considering to work on a minor release (0.9.1), where I then can address the other changes you requested, too.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: synopsis - Source-code Introspection Tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220393
mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO Flag| |needinfo?(seefeld@sympatico. | |ca)
------- Additional Comments From mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-21 10:49 EST ------- Again?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: synopsis - Source-code Introspection Tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220393
seefeld@sympatico.ca changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ON_DEV Flag|needinfo?(seefeld@sympatico.| |ca) |
------- Additional Comments From seefeld@sympatico.ca 2007-02-26 21:11 EST ------- I have updated the package to install things into <prefix>/share/doc/Synopsis-<version>, as opposed to <prefix>/share/doc/Synopsis. I also updated the spec file to fix a number of the issues you noted.
As I plan to make this another release (0.9.1), once you confirm conformance, all I have right now for testing is a snapshot file, with included spec file, at http://synopsis.fresco.org/download/Synopsis-snapshot.tar.gz. Can you work with that to validate ?
Thanks !
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: synopsis - Source-code Introspection Tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220393
------- Additional Comments From mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-27 02:54 EST ------- Umm: * First is the package name "Synopsis" or "synopsis"? There is a confusion between tarball name <-> rpm name <-> documentation directory name * And what is the release? "rpmbuild -ta" does not work. Please fix the release number correctly.
Please upload the spec/srpm so that we (reviewers) can simply do "rpmbuild --rebuild <your srpm>" without fixing name, release number etc.. I have to say that only informing tarball is very confusing.
Well, it seems that you are upstream so * first please unify name. * and fix the spec file so that we can simply do "rpmbuild -ta" or so. * And please add the soversion to libSynopsis.so
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: synopsis - Source-code Introspection Tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220393
------- Additional Comments From seefeld@sympatico.ca 2007-03-05 08:22 EST ------- OK, I'll do that. However, I still have some questions:
* Is the versioning of libSynopsis.so really necessary ? I don't plan to provide any kind of backward compatibility in the short term (the API and ABI still evolve a lot). Is there anything I should do to make that clear (such as encode the version in the name itself) ?
* What tools other than rpmlint do you use to validate a package ? I did use that but couldn't see some of the issues you reported earlier.
Thanks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: synopsis - Source-code Introspection Tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220393
------- Additional Comments From mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-03-05 09:08 EST ------- (In reply to comment #17)
OK, I'll do that. However, I still have some questions:
- Is the versioning of libSynopsis.so really necessary ? I don't plan to provide any kind of backward compatibility in the short term (the API and ABI still evolve a lot)
Does this mean that API/ABI may change even on 0.9.X series? Anyway I recommend to provide somajor.
- What tools other than rpmlint do you use to validate a package ? I did use that but couldn't see some of the issues you reported earlier.
Actually the items the reviewer should check is not only rpmlint issue, mainly written on:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets
And a reviewer may check other points which are not written on these documents (well this depends on reviewers).
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: synopsis - Source-code Introspection Tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220393
------- Additional Comments From seefeld@sympatico.ca 2007-03-05 09:18 EST ------- No, 0.9.1 will be fully compatible with 0.9. However, such a minor (bugfix-only) release is exceptional. Usually I avoid it precisely because I don't see any point in even trying to be compatible. libSynopsis.so is not meant to be used by the public just yet. It's Used by all python extension modules, and eventually may be used for C++-only programs, too. But I'm not there yet.
OK, I'll add the major version as somajor.
Thanks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: synopsis - Source-code Introspection Tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220393
bugzilla@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Severity|normal |medium
mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_DEV |NEEDINFO Flag| |needinfo?(seefeld@sympatico. | |ca)
------- Additional Comments From mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-04-05 04:06 EST ------- ping?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: synopsis - Source-code Introspection Tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220393
bugzilla@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Priority|normal |medium
------- Additional Comments From mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-05-25 13:46 EST ------- ping again? I will close this bug as NOTABUG if no response can be received in one week.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: synopsis - Source-code Introspection Tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220393
seefeld@sympatico.ca changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ON_DEV Flag|needinfo?(seefeld@sympatico.| |ca) |
------- Additional Comments From seefeld@sympatico.ca 2007-05-29 11:54 EST ------- What is the procedure to submit a not-yet-released package for testing ? I'm still looking into finishing up synopsis-0.9.1 (in particular any changes required in order to become a fedora citizen), yet it seems I have to submit an official (released) package.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: synopsis - Source-code Introspection Tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220393
------- Additional Comments From mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-05-29 12:19 EST ------- What is a problem is that I have completely forgotton the status of this review request.
Even if you are trying to publish 0.9.1 formal tarball, unless you upload some "current status of tarball (i.e. some rc tarball)" and make srpm/spec file, I cannot do any check.
So would you update the "current" rpm (using some rc tarball) so that someone (including me) can check it?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: synopsis - Source-code Introspection Tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220393
bugzilla@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora
mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_DEV |NEEDINFO Flag| |needinfo?(seefeld@sympatico. | |ca)
------- Additional Comments From mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-07-07 14:20 EST ------- ping ?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: synopsis - Source-code Introspection Tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=220393
------- Additional Comments From tibbs@math.uh.edu 2007-09-05 23:39 EST ------- Another two months have gone by; this ticket should probably be closed soon.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: synopsis - Source-code Introspection Tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=220393
tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163776, 177841 |201449 nThis| | Status|NEEDINFO |CLOSED Resolution| |NOTABUG Flag|needinfo?(seefeld@sympatico.| |ca) |
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: synopsis - Source-code Introspection Tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=220393
bugzilla@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Version|devel |rawhide
mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|NOTABUG |DUPLICATE
------- Additional Comments From mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2008-04-14 14:39 EST -------
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 438543 ***
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org