Bug 172872
Summary: | Review Request: sloccount | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Bastien Nocera <bnocera> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Ed Hill <ed> |
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | David Lawrence <dkl> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | agrover, fedora-extras-list, jwboyer |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | gwync:
fedora-cvs+
|
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2006-04-04 09:18:11 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: | |||
Bug Depends On: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 163779 |
Description
Bastien Nocera
2005-11-10 19:14:04 UTC
I don't know what the policies of Fedora are on data that is generated by a program, but sloccount produces the following statement at the bottom of each report: SLOCCount, Copyright (C) 2001-2004 David A. Wheeler SLOCCount is Open Source Software/Free Software, licensed under the GNU GPL. SLOCCount comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY, and you are welcome to redistribute it under certain conditions as specified by the GNU GPL license; see the documentation for details. Please credit this data as "generated using David A. Wheeler's 'SLOCCount'." Does the "Please credit.." line cause a problem at all? Is it required when including the data in a report, etc? Hi Bastien & Josh, I don't think the "Please credit..." line should be seen as anything more (or less!) than a polite request by the author. The lines immediately preceeding it clearly and unequivocally state that SLOCCount is GPL-ed. Moving on to a quick (incomplete!) review, I noticed the following: - the source does not match upstream according to: wget http://www.dwheeler.com/sloccount/sloccount-2.26.tar.gz cmp sloccount-2.26.tar.gz.1 sloccount-2.26.tar.gz and this is a necessary pre-requisiste for almost any review - wrong "BuildRoot:" is used -- please see: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines " - the source does not match upstream according to:" I'll blame Scott on that one, I used his source RPM as a starting point. I'll fix up the rest of the .spec when I have a moment. Hi Bastien, its been 2+ months since the last comment -- is this submission still active? I really slacked on that. Just need to do some work on it... Updated packages at: http://files.hadess.net/redhat/perso/spec/sloccount.spec and http://files.hadess.net/redhat/perso/source/sloccount-2.26-1.src.rpm Hi Bastien, The above SRPM URL gave a 404 but I found the "-2" rev which I assume you meant to reference in the first place. 36397816454626ed4abc11afc66783aaec01f444 sloccount-2.26-2.src.rpm good: - source matches upstream - builds on FC4 i386 (still waiting on the mock build...) - rpmlint OK -- no warnings or errors - name OK - license is OK and correctly included - spec-file is clean and simple (although it might be nice to use "%setup -q" but thats just a suggestion!) - no shared libs - dir ownership and permissions OK very minor nit: - the description could be shortened a bit and the text better formatted -- but thats not a blocker Its taking me a while to get a mock build and I think its due to a slow network connection. As soon as I get a clean mock build, I'll approve the package. [note: the above was an sha1sum] Builds in mock on FC4 i386. Ran OK on some simple tests. APPROVED. Thanks for the advices Ed, it's all in CVS now. Doesn't build with RPM optflags. A complete patch would be needed (since CFLAGS are not accepted) or a hack like this: --- sloccount.spec.orig 2006-04-04 11:21:23.000000000 +0200 +++ sloccount.spec 2006-04-04 18:54:27.000000000 +0200 @@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ %setup -q %build -make +make CC="gcc ${RPM_OPT_FLAGS}" %install rm -rf ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT} That's actually what's recommended: # Set this to your C compiler, if it's not "gcc"; a likely alternative is "cc". # The "-Wall" option turns on warnings in gcc. gcc users might also want # to consider using "-Werror", which turns warnings into errors. CC=gcc -Wall Should be fixed in sloccount-2.26-4 Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: sloccount New Branches: el5 el6 Owners: hadess grover Git done (by process-git-requests). |