[Bug 1644473] New: Review Request: llvm-test-suite - C/ C++ Compiler Test Suite

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1644473

Bug ID: 1644473
           Summary: Review Request: llvm-test-suite - C/C++ Compiler Test
                    Suite
           Product: Fedora
           Version: rawhide
         Component: Package Review
          Severity: medium
          Priority: medium
          Assignee: [e-mail]
          Reporter: [e-mail]
        QA Contact: [e-mail]
                CC: [e-mail]

Spec URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/tstellar/llvm-test-suite/fed...
SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/tstellar/llvm-test-suite/fed...
Description: C/C++ Compiler Test Suite that is maintained as an LLVM
sub-project.  This test suite can be run with any compiler, not just clang.
Fedora Account System Username: tstellar

[Bug 1644473] Review Request: llvm-test-suite - C/C++ Compiler Test Suite

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1644473

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---

- 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 %license.
  Note: License file COPYING is not marked as %license
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text

- Shouldn't the package be noarch since you don't actually build anything?

[Bug 1644473] Review Request: llvm-test-suite - C/C++ Compiler Test Suite

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1644473

--- Comment #2 from Tom Stellard  ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1)
> 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 %license.
>   Note: License file COPYING is not marked as %license
>   See:
>   http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text

Ok, I will fix that.
> Shouldn't the package be noarch since you don't actually build anything?

Part of the test suite is an ABI test suite and it contains x86_64 binaries, so
this was preventing me from making it noarch.  I would like to make it noarch
if there is a way to work around this.

[Bug 1644473] Review Request: llvm-test-suite - C/C++ Compiler Test Suite

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1644473

--- Comment #3 from Tom Stellard  ---
Spec URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/tstellar/llvm-test-suite/fed...
SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/tstellar/llvm-test-suite/fed...

I found the %_binaries_in_noarch_packages_terminate_build macro which allows me
to make the package noarch.

I merged all the licenses into a single file and included it in %license.

[Bug 1644473] Review Request: llvm-test-suite - C/C++ Compiler Test Suite

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1644473

--- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - pkg_test_suite.sh should be added as a source Right now I don't have access
to this script and I don't know what it is doing.

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed

===== MUST items =====

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.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[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 does not use a name that already exists.
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[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).
[?]: 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.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

[Bug 1644473] Review Request: llvm-test-suite - C/C++ Compiler Test Suite

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1644473

--- Comment #5 from Tom Stellard  ---
Spec URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/tstellar/llvm-test-suite/fed...
SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/tstellar/llvm-test-suite/fed...

Added pkg_test_suite.sh script to sources.

[Bug 1644473] Review Request: llvm-test-suite - C/C++ Compiler Test Suite

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1644473

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |POST
           Assignee|[e-mail]    |[e-mail]
              Flags|                            |fedora-review+

--- Comment #6 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
Package approved.

[Bug 1644473] Review Request: llvm-test-suite - C/C++ Compiler Test Suite

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1644473

--- Comment #7 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/llvm-test-suite

[Bug 1644473] Review Request: llvm-test-suite - C/C++ Compiler Test Suite

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1644473

Miro Hrončok  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail],
                   |                            |[e-mail]
              Flags|                            |needinfo?(tstellar@redhat.c
                   |                            |om)

--- Comment #8 from Miro Hrončok  ---
llvm-test-suite requires /usr/bin/python2 and python2-lit. Adding new packages
that require python 2 is forbidden in Fedora.

Robert-André, please don't approve such packages.

Tom, please fix your package to use Python 3 or no Python at all.

[Bug 1644473] Review Request: llvm-test-suite - C/C++ Compiler Test Suite

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1644473

Tom Stellard  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|needinfo?(tstellar@redhat.c |
                   |om)                         |

--- Comment #9 from Tom Stellard  ---
This is not actually a new package, it was previously a sub-package of clang.

I will work on dropping python2.

[Bug 1644473] Review Request: llvm-test-suite - C/C++ Compiler Test Suite

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1644473

--- Comment #10 from Miro Hrončok  ---
Thanks for the info.

[Bug 1644473] Review Request: llvm-test-suite - C/C++ Compiler Test Suite

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1644473

--- Comment #11 from Tom Stellard  ---
I have filed a separate bug for this:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1656688