[Bug 526564] Review Request: unittest - C++ unit testing framework
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Thu Oct 1 17:23:24 UTC 2009
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526564
--- Comment #2 from Ionuț Arțăriși <mapleoin at fedoraproject.org> 2009-10-01 13:23:23 EDT ---
Thanks for the review, Michael!
> > I'm not a packager yet, but I have a sponsor
> Really? This package needs a lot of love, since it isn't ready yet and doesn't
> pass the guidelines
> Btw, your sponsor must be the one to do the final package review:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process#Reviewer
It's gotten a bit more complicated I think, since I've submitted more packages
after I've found a sponsor for the calibre package. As I understood from my
sponsor, he will watch all my submissions and reviews and help me get
sponsored.
> rpmlint is a bit scary
> Well, it's more scary that you don't comment on those rpmlint warnings and
> errors at all. Some of the errors found by rpmlint are obvious packaging
> mistakes. You don't even ask any questions about that. Also run rpmlint on the
> src.rpm.
> Please become familiar with the Packaging Guidelines:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
> In particular take a look at
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries
Sorry for not commenting on the rpmlint errors. I was actually looking for
feedback as I didn't know what to do about all those errors. I knew what they
meant, but I also falsely assumed that all tests provided by the package must
be included in the final rpm.
The package now removes all the tests after they are run.
> But that's not the only problem. At the top of the list are misplaced files,
> such as
> -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/collection.html
> -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/default.css
> -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/index.html
> -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/misc.html
> -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/mixin.html
> -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/setup-teardown.html
> -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/test-advanced.html
> -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/test.html
Fixed.
> -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/unittest-devel-0.50/INSTALL
> That one is irrelevant to RPM package end-users.
I found nothing in the Guidelines saying that irrelevant files should be
excluded, though I found a lot of INSTALL files that are written in a similar
manner and included. Originally I followed the example of the eject.spec
described in:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/CreatingPackageHowTo
# yum provides */INSTALL|echo $((`wc -l`/7))
553
> > %{__sed} -i 's|/usr/lib|%{buildroot}%{_libdir}|g' Makefile
> That transformation breaks the build on 64-bit platforms where libdir is
> /usr/lib64.
Fixed.
SPEC: http://mapleoin.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/unittest/unittest.spec.1
SRPM:
http://mapleoin.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/unittest/unittest-0.50-62.2.fc11.src.rpm
* Thu Oct 1 2009 Ionuț Arțăriși <mapleoin at fedoraproject.org> - 0.50-62.2
- don't include tests
- move html docs to the right dir
- add Provides: -static
- fixed Group:
- fixed /usr/lib problem for 64-bit systems in Makefile
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
More information about the package-review
mailing list