Bug 185325

Summary: Review Request: sparse
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: bkyoung <bkyoung>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody>
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE QA Contact: Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: hdegoede
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2006-08-30 02:10:33 EDT Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 201449    
Description Flags
Sparse RPM spec file
Generate shared objects patch
Adds sparse support to kernel-2.6 (2041)
Sparse RPM spec file
Generate shared objects patch
Adds sparse support to kernel-2.6 (2054)
Sparse RPM spec file
Generate shared objects patch none

Description bkyoung 2006-03-13 14:26:44 EST
Spec Name or Url: Attached as sparse.spec
SRPM Name or Url: Must build separately
Description: A C semantic parser.

While flailing and failing to resolve a kernel issue, I followed this "sparse" tangent and now have a sparse RPM for Fedora.

The Linux kernel build system directly supports sparse, and including it in Fedora Extras would be a convenience to anyone wishing to attempt to use it.

Because of compat-i386.c, the spec file may require:

The license is OSL V1.1, but exemptions included in the license imply executables linking to the library itself (sparse) are not considered "Original Work".

A kernel-2.6.spec.patch (for kernel-smp-2.6.15-1.2041) is attached to provide a convenient way to use sparse when rebuilding the kernel.

Attached are:

To git (from git-core) tarball:
git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/devel/sparse/sparse.git
cd sparse
git-tar-tree HEAD sparse-0.1 | gzip > ../sparse-0.1.tar.gz

rpmlint output:
W: sparse invalid-license OSL
W: sparse-debuginfo invalid-license OSL
W: sparse-debuginfo objdump-failed 
W: sparse-devel invalid-license OSL
Comment 1 bkyoung 2006-03-13 14:28:05 EST
Created attachment 126063 [details]
Sparse RPM spec file
Comment 2 bkyoung 2006-03-13 14:28:57 EST
Created attachment 126064 [details]
Generate shared objects patch
Comment 3 bkyoung 2006-03-13 14:29:47 EST
Created attachment 126065 [details]
Adds sparse support to kernel-2.6 (2041)
Comment 4 bkyoung 2006-03-14 11:31:49 EST
Created attachment 126107 [details]
Sparse RPM spec file
Comment 5 bkyoung 2006-03-14 11:32:39 EST
Created attachment 126108 [details]
Generate shared objects patch
Comment 6 bkyoung 2006-03-16 12:26:40 EST
Created attachment 126234 [details]
Adds sparse support to kernel-2.6 (2054)
Comment 7 bkyoung 2006-03-16 12:27:09 EST
Created attachment 126235 [details]
Sparse RPM spec file
Comment 8 bkyoung 2006-03-16 12:27:49 EST
Created attachment 126236 [details]
Generate shared objects patch
Comment 9 Hans de Goede 2006-05-19 12:37:23 EDT
I think its great that you've created a spare package and waht to make this
available to others through FE. But first you really should learn some stuff
about FE procedures. I didn't find your bkyoung account in onwers.list, so I
assume that this is your first package.

To become an FE packager you must follow the following procedure:

As is Outlined in the "Create Your Review Request" step you should have added
the FE-NEEDSPONSOR blocker bug, since this is your first package.

Please read the above page, the packaging guidelines and the review procedure
wikipages thoroughly so that you can learn and understant the FE process /

Also it is uncommon for package reviewers to have to put all the pieces like a
git checkout and all your attachments together themselves. Instead create a
.src.rpm file (rpmbuild -bs sparse.spec) upload that somewhere and put an URL in
the review request (iow here in BZ).
Comment 10 Jason Tibbitts 2006-07-20 16:00:44 EDT
Anything happening here?  It's been two months.
Comment 11 Jason Tibbitts 2006-10-27 01:09:32 EDT

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 212513 ***