[Bug 864066] New: Review Request: libecb - Compiler built-ins - package-review

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

[Bug 864066] New: Review Request: libecb - Compiler built-ins

older

[Bug 877276] New: Review Request:...

[Bug 829126] New: Review Request:...

Red Hat Bugzilla

8 Oct 2012 8 Oct '12

3:48 p.m.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864066

Bug ID: 864066 QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org Severity: medium Version: rawhide Priority: medium CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: libecb - Compiler built-ins Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: ppisar@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora

Spec URL: http://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/libecb/libecb.spec SRPM URL: http://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/libecb/libecb-0.20121008-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: This project delivers you many GCC built-ins, attributes and a number of generally useful low-level functions, such as popcount, expect, prefetch, noinline, assume, unreachable and so on.

Fedora Account System Username: ppisar

-- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

Show replies by date

Red Hat Bugzilla

8 Oct 8 Oct

3:49 p.m.

New subject: [Bug 864066] Review Request: libecb - Compiler built-ins

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864066

Petr Pisar ppisar@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |863988

-- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

Red Hat Bugzilla

3:50 p.m.

New subject: [Bug 864066] Review Request: libecb - Compiler built-ins

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864066

Petr Pisar ppisar@redhat.com changed:

-- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

Red Hat Bugzilla

9 Oct 9 Oct

9:13 a.m.

New subject: [Bug 864066] Review Request: libecb - Compiler built-ins

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864066

--- Comment #1 from Petr Pisar ppisar@redhat.com --- This package will go into F≥18 due to reverse dependencies.

-- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

Red Hat Bugzilla

14 Oct 14 Oct

5:52 p.m.

New subject: [Bug 864066] Review Request: libecb - Compiler built-ins

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864066

Mario Blättermann mario.blaettermann@gmail.com changed:

--- Comment #2 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaettermann@gmail.com --- Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4588995

$ rpmlint -i -v * libecb.noarch: I: checking libecb.noarch: E: devel-dependency glibc-headers Your package has a dependency on a devel package but it's not a devel package itself.

libecb.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US popcount -> pop count, pop-count, upcountry The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

libecb.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US prefetch -> pref etch, pref-etch, prefect The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

libecb.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US noinline -> no inline, no-inline, nonlinear The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

libecb.noarch: I: checking-url http://software.schmorp.de/pkg/libecb (timeout 10 seconds) libecb.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/ecb.h A development file (usually source code) is located in a non-devel package. If you want to include source code in your package, be sure to create a development package.

libecb.src: I: checking libecb.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US popcount -> pop count, pop-count, upcountry The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

libecb.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US prefetch -> pref etch, pref-etch, prefect The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

libecb.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US noinline -> no inline, no-inline, nonlinear The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

libecb.src: I: checking-url http://software.schmorp.de/pkg/libecb (timeout 10 seconds) libecb.src: W: no-%build-section The spec file does not contain a %build section. Even if some packages don't directly need it, section markers may be overridden in rpm's configuration to provide additional "under the hood" functionality, such as injection of automatic -debuginfo subpackages. Add the section, even if empty.

libecb.src:12: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 12, tab: line 2) The specfile mixes use of spaces and tabs for indentation, which is a cosmetic annoyance. Use either spaces or tabs for indentation, not both.

libecb.src: W: invalid-url Source0: libecb-20121008.tar.xz The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL.

libecb.spec: W: no-%build-section The spec file does not contain a %build section. Even if some packages don't directly need it, section markers may be overridden in rpm's configuration to provide additional "under the hood" functionality, such as injection of automatic -debuginfo subpackages. Add the section, even if empty.

libecb.spec:12: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 12, tab: line 2) The specfile mixes use of spaces and tabs for indentation, which is a cosmetic annoyance. Use either spaces or tabs for indentation, not both.

libecb.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: libecb-20121008.tar.xz The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL.

2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 13 warnings.

Some warnings are ignorable. The invalid source is nevertheless valid, because we have a VCS checkout. It *is* a devel package although it doesn't have the -devel suffix, because there are no other files.

You just have to fix the missing %build section and the mixed use of spaces and tabs. I recommend spaces, because this way we get the same view in all text editors, regardless of the configured tab width.

-- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

Red Hat Bugzilla

15 Oct 15 Oct

10:21 a.m.

New subject: [Bug 864066] Review Request: libecb - Compiler built-ins

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864066

--- Comment #3 from Petr Pisar ppisar@redhat.com --- You are right. Updates package is on the same address.

-- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

Red Hat Bugzilla

10:58 a.m.

New subject: [Bug 864066] Review Request: libecb - Compiler built-ins

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864066

Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rc040203@freenet.de

--- Comment #4 from Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de --- Increment the release tag, each time you update your submission.

-- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

Red Hat Bugzilla

20 Oct 20 Oct

11:14 p.m.

New subject: [Bug 864066] Review Request: libecb - Compiler built-ins

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864066

Mario Blättermann mario.blaettermann@gmail.com changed:

--- Comment #5 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaettermann@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #4)

...

Increment the release tag, each time you update your submission.

Indeed, although we are in a pre-Git state, bumping the release tag make it easier to track changes.

Nevertheless, here's the new scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4611546

$ rpmlint -i -v * libecb.noarch: I: checking libecb.noarch: E: devel-dependency glibc-headers Your package has a dependency on a devel package but it's not a devel package itself.

libecb.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US popcount -> pop count, pop-count, upcountry The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

libecb.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US prefetch -> pref etch, pref-etch, prefect The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

libecb.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US noinline -> no inline, no-inline, nonlinear The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

libecb.src: I: checking libecb.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US popcount -> pop count, pop-count, upcountry The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

libecb.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US prefetch -> pref etch, pref-etch, prefect The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

libecb.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US noinline -> no inline, no-inline, nonlinear The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

libecb.src: I: checking-url http://software.schmorp.de/pkg/libecb (timeout 10 seconds) libecb.src: W: invalid-url Source0: libecb-20121008.tar.xz The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL.

libecb.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: libecb-20121008.tar.xz The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL.

2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 9 warnings.

--------------------------------- key:

[+] OK [.] OK, not applicable [X] needs work ---------------------------------

[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review. [+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. [+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. BSD [+] MUST: 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 must be included in %doc. [+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [.] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. $ sha256sum * 8517f2585a427101f9733a9db84c7a531c2a1b7da12cf1481a68ae8ae2f0ecfa libecb-20121008.tar.xz 5856d96dcf283c9082870a3d43dcb60ae9f2e6850f615e578e9d6360df280baf libecb.tar.xz.orig

Common problem for any VCS checkouts.

[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. [.] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. [.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. [.] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [.] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. [.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. [+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. [+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations) [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. [+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. [.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [.] MUST: Development files must be in a -devel package. [.] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} [.] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. [.] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

[.] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [.] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. See Koji build above (which uses Mock anyway). [+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [.] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. [.] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [.] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [.] SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. [.] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. [.] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.

----------------

PACKAGE APPROVED

----------------

-- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

Red Hat Bugzilla

22 Oct 22 Oct

10:51 a.m.

New subject: [Bug 864066] Review Request: libecb - Compiler built-ins

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864066

Petr Pisar ppisar@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?

--- Comment #6 from Petr Pisar ppisar@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: libecb Short Description: Compiler built-ins Owners: ppisar Branches: f18 InitialCC:

-- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

Red Hat Bugzilla

2:05 p.m.

New subject: [Bug 864066] Review Request: libecb - Compiler built-ins

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864066

--- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).

-- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

Red Hat Bugzilla

2:38 p.m.

New subject: [Bug 864066] Review Request: libecb - Compiler built-ins

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864066

Petr Pisar ppisar@redhat.com changed:

--- Comment #8 from Petr Pisar ppisar@redhat.com --- Thank you for the review and the repository.

-- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

Red Hat Bugzilla

2:43 p.m.

New subject: [Bug 864066] Review Request: libecb - Compiler built-ins

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864066

--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- libecb-0.20121008-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libecb-0.20121008-1.fc18

-- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

Red Hat Bugzilla

23 Oct 23 Oct

8:43 a.m.

New subject: [Bug 864066] Review Request: libecb - Compiler built-ins

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864066

Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA

-- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

Red Hat Bugzilla

8:43 a.m.

New subject: [Bug 864066] Review Request: libecb - Compiler built-ins

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864066

--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- Package perl-Coro-6.09-4.fc18, libecb-0.20121008-1.fc18: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing perl-Coro-6.09-4.fc18 libecb-0.20121008-1.fc18' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-16684/libecb-0.20121008-... then log in and leave karma (feedback).

-- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

Red Hat Bugzilla

15 Nov 15 Nov

10:40 p.m.

New subject: [Bug 864066] Review Request: libecb - Compiler built-ins

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864066

Mario Blättermann mario.blaettermann@gmail.com changed:

--- Comment #11 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaettermann@gmail.com --- Package is now marked as stable.

-- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

4247

Age (days ago)

4285

Last active (days ago)

package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

14 comments

1 participants

tags (0)

participants (1)

Red Hat Bugzilla