Bug 1273065

Summary: Review Request: vtable-dumper - Tool to list content of virtual tables in a C++ shared library
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Richard Shaw <hobbes1069>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Orion Poplawski <orion>
Status: CLOSED ERRATA QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: unspecified Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: rawhideCC: orion, package-review
Target Milestone: ---Flags: orion: fedora-review+
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2015-11-01 02:31:51 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Richard Shaw 2015-10-19 13:54:47 UTC
Spec URL: http://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org//vtable-dumper.spec
SRPM URL: http://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org//vtable-dumper-1.1-1.fc21.src.rpm

Description:
Vtable-Dumper is a tool to list content of virtual tables in a C++ shared
library. It is intended for developers of software libraries and maintainers of
Linux distributions who are interested in ensuring backward binary
compatibility.

The tool is developed by Andrey Ponomarenko: http://abi-laboratory.pro/

Comment 1 Richard Shaw 2015-10-19 13:55:29 UTC
Scratch build:

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11499922

Comment 2 Orion Poplawski 2015-10-19 14:44:42 UTC
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL?rd=Packaging/SourceURL#Git_Tags

So:

Source0:      https://github.com/lvc/%{name}/archive/%{version}.tar.gz#/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz

It's probably worth asking for clarification on the license - there is no mention of which version of the GPL/LGPL, or of "any later version".

More later but fedora-review is not behaving on my machine at this moment.

Comment 3 Richard Shaw 2015-10-19 23:04:39 UTC
> See
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL?rd=Packaging/
> SourceURL#Git_Tags
> 
> So:
> 
> Source0:     
> https://github.com/lvc/%{name}/archive/%{version}.tar.gz#/%{name}-%{version}.
> tar.gz
> 

Great! I didn't know they had updated the guidelines to something much more sane than the one with the full 40 digit hash tag in the name. I've got a project that creates 230MB build logs due to the bloat.(In reply to Orion Poplawski from comment #2)


> It's probably worth asking for clarification on the license - there is no
> mention of which version of the GPL/LGPL, or of "any later version".

I struggled with that as well but looking at the license guidelines, if it doesn't attribute to a specific version it defaults to any version.

Comment 4 Orion Poplawski 2015-10-20 02:11:22 UTC
Package Review
==============

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

- I'll note that at the moment, %{?_smp_mflags} is useless since there is only one make command.
- I'm assuming you'll fix Source0

APPROVED

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

C/C++:
[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.

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.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "GPL", "Unknown or generated". 4 files have unknown license.
     Detailed output of licensecheck in /export/home/orion/redhat/1273065
     -vtable-dumper/licensecheck.txt
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[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.
[-]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 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 %license.
[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]: 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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

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

Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[-]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[-]: 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.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
     Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[-]: 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]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

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

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[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 arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: vtable-dumper-1.1-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm
          vtable-dumper-1.1-1.fc24.src.rpm
vtable-dumper.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vtable-dumper
vtable-dumper.src:11: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
vtable-dumper.src:11: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
vtable-dumper.src: W: invalid-url Source0: vtable-dumper-1.1.tar.gz
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: vtable-dumper-debuginfo-1.1-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
vtable-dumper.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vtable-dumper
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.



Requires
--------
vtable-dumper (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libdl.so.2()(64bit)
    libelf.so.1()(64bit)
    libelf.so.1(ELFUTILS_1.0)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)



Provides
--------
vtable-dumper:
    vtable-dumper
    vtable-dumper(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20
Command line :/bin/fedora-review -b 1273065
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

Comment 5 Richard Shaw 2015-10-20 12:56:55 UTC
Yes, I've already fixed it on my end but didn't figure it was worth posting a new spec and srpm for that one.

Thanks for the review!

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2015-10-20 16:31:11 UTC
vtable-dumper-1.1-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-617b46ea8d

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2015-10-20 21:56:50 UTC
vtable-dumper-1.1-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update vtable-dumper'
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-617b46ea8d

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2015-10-26 18:30:56 UTC
vtable-dumper-1.1-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update vtable-dumper'
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-84195b639e

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2015-11-01 02:31:48 UTC
vtable-dumper-1.1-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2015-11-04 22:23:29 UTC
vtable-dumper-1.1-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.