Bug 1690830

Summary:	Review Request: nextpnr - FPGA place and route tool
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak>
Component:	Package Review	Assignee:	Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 <zebob.m>
Status:	CLOSED ERRATA	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	unspecified	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	rawhide	CC:	package-review, somlo, zebob.m
Target Milestone:	---	Flags:	zebob.m: fedora-review+
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2019-04-11 02:14:00 UTC	Type:	Bug
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:	1664370
Bug Blocks:

Description Lubomir Rintel 2019-03-20 10:23:50 UTC

SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/nextpnr.spec
SRPM: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/nextpnr-0-0.1.20190319gitcadbf42.fc29.src.rpm

Description:

nextpnr aims to be a vendor neutral, timing driven, FOSS FPGA place and
route tool.

Comment 1 Lubomir Rintel 2019-03-21 11:13:22 UTC

SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/nextpnr.spec
SRPM: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/nextpnr-0-0.2.20190319gitcadbf42.fc29.src.rpm

Comment 2 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2019-03-23 02:29:18 UTC

 - The Release field in the header and %changelog entry do not match.

Thanks God I have 16Go and 8Go of swap 😓 

 - You need to rename the LICENSE files otherwise they overwrite each other

%license 3rdparty/qtimgui/LICENSE
%license 3rdparty/python-console/LICENSE

Fix these issues before import. Package approved.



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

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


Issues:
=======
- Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
  Note: BUILDSTDERR: warning: File listed twice:
  /usr/share/licenses/nextpnr/LICENSE
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/#_duplicate_files


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

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
     BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[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: "Unknown or generated", "ISC License", "BSD 3-clause "New" or
     "Revised" License", "Expat License", "*No copyright* Expat License",
     "*No copyright* Apache License", "Apache License (v2.0)", "SIL Open
     Font License (v1.1)", "*No copyright* Apache License (v2.0)",
     "zlib/libpng license", "Khronos License". 512 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/bob/packaging/review/nextpnr/review-nextpnr/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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 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]: 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:
[-]: 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in nextpnr
[?]: 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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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: nextpnr-0-0.1.20190319gitcadbf42.fc31.x86_64.rpm
          nextpnr-debuginfo-0-0.1.20190319gitcadbf42.fc31.x86_64.rpm
          nextpnr-debugsource-0-0.1.20190319gitcadbf42.fc31.x86_64.rpm
          nextpnr-0-0.1.20190319gitcadbf42.fc31.src.rpm
nextpnr.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0-0.2.20190319gitcadbf42 ['0-0.1.20190319gitcadbf42.fc31', '0-0.1.20190319gitcadbf42']
nextpnr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nextpnr-ecp5
nextpnr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nextpnr-generic
nextpnr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nextpnr-ice40
nextpnr.src:29: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(qtimgui)
nextpnr.src:33: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(QtPropertyBrowser)
nextpnr.src:36: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(python-console)
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings

Comment 3 Igor Raits 2019-03-24 21:08:03 UTC

(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/nextpnr

Comment 4 Fedora Update System 2019-04-05 12:37:28 UTC

nextpnr-0-0.3.20190401gitd27ec2c.fc30 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-0936384da2

Comment 5 Gabriel Somlo 2019-04-05 12:45:59 UTC

f28 and f29 builds fail due to the lack of a sufficiently recent version of icestorm (see #1664370).

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2019-04-06 18:38:15 UTC

nextpnr-0-0.3.20190401gitd27ec2c.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-0936384da2

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2019-04-11 02:14:00 UTC

nextpnr-0-0.3.20190401gitd27ec2c.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.