Bug 1109314

Summary: Review Request: lwtools - Cross-development tool chain for Motorola 6809 and Hitachi 6309
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: John W. Linville <linville>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Neil Horman <nhorman>
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: nhorman, package-review
Target Milestone: ---Flags: nhorman: fedora-review+
kevin: fedora-cvs+
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2014-06-18 19:20:51 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:

Description John W. Linville 2014-06-13 15:54:07 UTC
Spec URL: http://linville.fedorapeople.org/lwtools.spec
SRPM URL: http://linville.fedorapeople.org/lwtools-4.10-1.fc20.src.rpm
LWTOOLS is a set of cross-development tools for the Motorola 6809 and
Hitachi 6309 microprocessors. It supports assembling to raw binaries,
CoCo LOADM binaries, and a proprietary object file format for later
linking. It also supports macros and file inclusion among other things.
Fedora Account System Username: linville

Comment 1 John W. Linville 2014-06-13 17:24:18 UTC
Correcting incorrect references to "/usr/bin"...

Comment 3 Neil Horman 2014-06-13 17:27:42 UTC
Package Review

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

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

[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
NH: COPYING file indicates lwcc isn't licensed with gpl3, but packager has
removed that code it would seem, so I think we're good with just GPL3

[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
     "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[NA]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[NA]: 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.
[NA]: 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.
[NA]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 2 files.
[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]: 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 %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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]: 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
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[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
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

[NA]: 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).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[NA]: 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
NH: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7043827

[NA]: %check is present and all tests pass.
NH: No unit tests available

[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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
[x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Checking: lwtools-4.10-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm
lwtools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary lwlink
lwtools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary lwobjdump
lwtools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary lwar
lwtools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary lwasm
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
# rpmlint lwtools-doc lwtools
lwtools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary lwlink
lwtools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary lwobjdumpRequires
lwtools-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

lwtools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Source checksums
http://lwtools.projects.l-w.ca/releases/lwtools/lwtools-4.10.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 06ee27c597798bbfb064a8d9471e5cd91074ff22fa8eb4f7d276a8809d35622c
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 06ee27c597798bbfb064a8d9471e5cd91074ff22fa8eb4f7d276a8809d35622c
lwtools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary lwar
lwtools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary lwasm
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.

Package passes, set review_ack

Comment 4 John W. Linville 2014-06-13 17:37:03 UTC
New Package SCM Request
Package Name: lwtools
Short Description: Cross-development tool chain for Motorola 6809
Upstream URL: http://lwtools.projects.l-w.ca/
Owners: linville
Branches: f19 f20

Comment 5 Christopher Meng 2014-06-14 02:26:06 UTC
1. LDFLAGS not inserted(%{?__global_ldflags})

2. mv docs/*.txt %{buildroot}%{_docdir}/%{name}
mv docs/manual %{buildroot}%{_docdir}/%{name}
cp COPYING GPL3 00README.txt %{buildroot}%{_docdir}/%{name}

Didn't preserve the timestamp.

3. Hint: F20+ %{_docdir}/%{name} = %{_pkgdocdir}

Comment 6 John W. Linville 2014-06-16 14:10:00 UTC
Thanks for the review.  I've implemented 1 and 2, and I'll consider 3 once f19 is out of support.

Comment 7 Kevin Fenzi 2014-06-18 16:29:20 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2014-06-18 19:15:12 UTC
lwtools-4.10-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19.

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2014-06-18 19:19:08 UTC
lwtools-4.10-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2014-06-27 21:49:10 UTC
lwtools-4.10-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2014-06-27 21:50:29 UTC
lwtools-4.10-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.