[Bug 564520] New: Review Request: frama-c - Framework for source code analysis of C software

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

Summary: Review Request: frama-c - Framework for source code analysis of C software

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=564520

           Summary: Review Request: frama-c - Framework for source code
                    analysis of C software
           Product: Fedora
           Version: rawhide
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: Linux
            Status: NEW
          Severity: medium
          Priority: medium
         Component: Package Review
        AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org
        ReportedBy: amdunn at gmail.com
         QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org
                CC: notting at redhat.com, fedora-package-review at redhat.com
   Estimated Hours: 0.0
    Classification: Fedora


Spec URL: https://www.openproofs.org/packages/frama-c/frama-c.spec
SRPM URL:
https://www.openproofs.org/packages/frama-c/frama-c-1.4-1.fc12.src.rpm
Description: Frama-C is a suite of tools dedicated to the analysis of the
source
code of software written in C.

Frama-C gathers several static analysis techniques in a single
collaborative framework. The collaborative approach of Frama-C allows
static analyzers to build upon the results already computed by other
analyzers in the framework. Thanks to this approach, Frama-C provides
sophisticated tools, such as a slicer and dependency analysis.

Previous discussion of this potential package is at
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=448502

Potential issues still remaining:

* The SELinux issue is not yet ironed out.

* I emailed the Fedora legal list
(http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/legal/2010-February/001112.html)
about the modifications to the QPL, but have not received any response back
yet.

* Upstream naming convention is still non-standard, uses elements of the
periodic table instead of version numbers. One possibility is to translate
these (Beryllium = 4 => 1.4), but perhaps this is unacceptable. (The
correspondence could be noted in the package description.)

* CIL (ocaml-cil) is still re-included as (somewhat significant) modifications
were made to the files for Frama-C, these files should not conflict with
ocaml-cil.

Builds on my system, rpmlint output as follows:

SPECS/frama-c.spec:109: W: make-check-outside-check-section # make tests | grep
--silent "Ok  = 1579 of 1581"

This is because I have disabled the system tests for now. They can be
re-enabled by uncommenting this line, but they take a while to execute, so I
wasn't quite sure whether it would be worthwhile. I may just try and add
exactly one of their tests in just to check that everything is working instead
of the whole test suite (which has 1581 tests, 2 of which actually aren't
included in the source tarball).

frama-c.src: W: invalid-license QPL with modifications

Licensing issue mentioned above

(Duplicates deleted as the SRPM, specfile, and RPM were all checked)

frama-c.i686: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/frama-c-gui
frama-c.i686: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib/frama-c/plugins/Ltl_to_acsl.cmxs
frama-c.i686: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/frama-c
frama-c.i686: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/frama-c.byte
frama-c.i686: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/frama-c-gui.byte

This will require a minor correction, but in general I was encouraged to get
this package up for preliminary analysis as quickly as possible.

frama-c-devel.i686: W: no-documentation

I'm not sure this really needs documentation on its own. The main package has
documentation.

Mock build will be completed soon, Koji build cannot be done yet as the package
will depend on an update that I am about to put out for ocaml-ocamlgraph. (The
package can be grabbed here:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1976591)

-- 
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.