Bug 208250
Summary: | Review Request: piklab - Development environment for applications based on PIC and dsPIC microcontrollers | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Alain Portal <alain.portal> | ||||
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Mamoru TASAKA <mtasaka> | ||||
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> | ||||
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |||||
Priority: | medium | ||||||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | alain.portal, chitlesh, mtasaka | ||||
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | kevin:
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: | 2006-09-29 17:53:49 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 | ||||||
Attachments: |
|
Description
Alain Portal
2006-09-27 12:32:24 UTC
Good: + Local build works fine. + Local install/uninstall works fine. + Program starts without complains. + Tar ball in source package matches with upstream. + Mock build works fine. Bad: - Rpmlint of source package complaints: pmlint piklab-0.11.3-1.src.rpm E: piklab summary-too-long Development environment for applications based on PIC and dsPIC microcontrollers E: piklab unknown-key GPG#8d4d7450 W: piklab strange-permission piklab-0.11.3.desktop.typo-fr.patch 0600 W: piklab strange-permission piklab-0.11.3.x-desktop-fr.patch 0600 W: piklab strange-permission piklab.spec 0600 W: piklab mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 51, tab: line 3) - rpmlint complains on binary rpm: E: piklab summary-too-long Development environment for applications based on PIC and dsPIC microcontrollers W: piklab dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/piklab/common ../doc/common /tmp/piklab-0.11.3-1.i686.rpm.18087/usr/share/applications/kde/piklab.desktop: warning: file contains key "DocPath", this key is currently reserved for use within KDE, and should in the future KDE releases be prefixed by "X-" - Please use http://switch.dl.sourceforge.net/..., so spectool will work properly. - Qt environment variable was not sourced. - Duplicate BuildRequires: libart_lgpl-devel (by kdelibs-devel), fam-devel (by kdelibs-devel) - BuildRequires: gettext is missing (required to build the translations) - Rpmlint complains on installed package: E: piklab summary-too-long Development environment for applications based on PIC and dsPIC microcontrollers W: piklab dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/piklab/common ../doc/common //usr/share/applications/kde/piklab.desktop: warning: file contains key "DocPath", this key is currently reserved for use within KDE, and should in the future KDE releases be prefixed by "X-" (In reply to comment #1) > Bad: > > - Rpmlint of source package complaints: > pmlint piklab-0.11.3-1.src.rpm > E: piklab summary-too-long Development environment for applications based on PIC > and dsPIC microcontrollers I don't have this error with an uptodate rpmlint (0.78-1.fc5) > E: piklab unknown-key GPG#8d4d7450 This is my key, please import. > W: piklab strange-permission piklab-0.11.3.desktop.typo-fr.patch 0600 > W: piklab strange-permission piklab-0.11.3.x-desktop-fr.patch 0600 > W: piklab strange-permission piklab.spec 0600 OK. > W: piklab mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 51, tab: line 3) It seems to me to not be really important. > - rpmlint complains on binary rpm: > E: piklab summary-too-long Development environment for applications based on PIC > and dsPIC microcontrollers ideem above > W: piklab dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/piklab/common > ../doc/common I tried to get help about this warning, no real answer https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-September/msg00789.html > /tmp/piklab-0.11.3-1.i686.rpm.18087/usr/share/applications/kde/piklab.desktop: > warning: file contains key "DocPath", this key is currently reserved for use > within KDE, and should in the future KDE releases be prefixed by "X-" This is a KDE application. > - Please use http://switch.dl.sourceforge.net/..., so spectool will work > properly. prdownloads.sourceforge.net don't do the same? what spectool? > - Qt environment variable was not sourced. Why sourcing Qt environment variables? > - Duplicate BuildRequires: libart_lgpl-devel (by kdelibs-devel), fam-devel (by > kdelibs-devel) OK. > - BuildRequires: gettext is missing (required to build the translations) There is no translation in this package > - Rpmlint complains on installed package: > E: piklab summary-too-long Development environment for applications based on PIC > and dsPIC microcontrollers > W: piklab dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/piklab/common > ../doc/common > //usr/share/applications/kde/piklab.desktop: warning: file contains key > "DocPath", this key is currently reserved for use within KDE, and should in the > future KDE releases be prefixed by "X-" Idem above Spec URL: http://linuxelectronique.free.fr/download/fedora/5/SPECS/piklab.spec SRPM URL: http://linuxelectronique.free.fr/download/fedora/5/SRPMS/piklab-0.11.3-2.src.rpm %changelog * Thu Sep 28 2006 Alain Portal <aportal[AT]univ-montp2[DOT]fr> 0.11.3-2 - Remove duplicate BR - Fix files permissions - Improve download URL - Don't mis space and tab Created attachment 137327 [details]
mockbuild log of piklab-0.11.3-2
Alain, can you rebuild piklab-0.11.3-2 correctly?
I tried under FC6-devel i386 mock, but it failed.
Would you check my build log?
(In reply to comment #4) > Created an attachment (id=137327) [edit] > mockbuild log of piklab-0.11.3-2 > > Alain, can you rebuild piklab-0.11.3-2 correctly? I'll do that tomorrow at work, my home computer isn't powerfull > I tried under FC6-devel i386 mock, but it failed. Strange, build fine on an uptodate FC5 > Would you check my build log? Yes, please. Bad: - Don't sourced QT environment variables. (this should make sure, that the build runs agains the right Qt version) - Rpmlint complaints on binary rpm: E: piklab summary-too-long Development environment for applications based on PIC and dsPIC microcontrollers W: piklab dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/piklab/common ../doc/common /tmp/piklab-0.11.3-2.i686.rpm.5998/usr/share/applications/kde/piklab.desktop: warning: file contains key "DocPath", this key is currently reserved for use within KDE, and should in the future KDE releases be prefixed by "X-" BTW: I use rpmlint-0.78-1 (In reply to comment #6) > Bad: > > - Don't sourced QT environment variables. > (this should make sure, that the build runs agains the right Qt version) This isn't needed. > - Rpmlint complaints on binary rpm: > E: piklab summary-too-long Development environment for applications based on PIC > and dsPIC microcontrollers I don't have this error! Mamoru, please, could you confirm? > W: piklab dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/piklab/common > ../doc/common > /tmp/piklab-0.11.3-2.i686.rpm.5998/usr/share/applications/kde/piklab.desktop: > warning: file contains key "DocPath", this key is currently reserved for use > within KDE, and should in the future KDE releases be prefixed by "X-" Why do you want I make a better package than you? rpmlint kyum-0.7.5-4.fc6.i386.rpm W: kyum dangling-symlink /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/kyum/common /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/common W: kyum symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/kyum/common /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/common E: kyum non-executable-script /usr/share/apps/kyum/kyum_sysinfo.py 0644 E: kyum zero-length /usr/share/doc/kyum-0.7.5/README /tmp/kyum-0.7.5-4.fc6.i386.rpm.3618/usr/share/applications/kde/fedora-kyum.desktop: warning: file contains key "DocPath", this key is currently reserved for use within KDE, and should in the future KDE releases be prefixed by "X-" (In reply to comment #7) > (In reply to comment #6) > > Bad: > > > > - Don't sourced QT environment variables. > > (this should make sure, that the build runs agains the right Qt version) > > This isn't needed. I also think this is not needed because the files under /etc/profile.d is "source"d even without explicitly sourced. Actually many packages using Qt don't source Qt environ explicitly, this can be seen under: http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/logs/fedora-development-extras/ > > - Rpmlint complaints on binary rpm: > > E: piklab summary-too-long Development environment for applications based on > PIC > > and dsPIC microcontrollers > > I don't have this error! > Mamoru, please, could you confirm? I HAVE. "rpmlint -I summary-too-long" says summary must be less than 80 characters (not longer than 79), however, this summary seems to have just 80 characters...... > > > W: piklab dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/piklab/common > > ../doc/common This warning is not a problem because kdelibs is installed together and it corrects this. > > /tmp/piklab-0.11.3-2.i686.rpm.5998/usr/share/applications/kde/piklab.desktop: > > warning: file contains key "DocPath", this key is currently reserved for use > > within KDE, and should in the future KDE releases be prefixed by "X-" > > Why do you want I make a better package than you? I think this can be ignored. And.... (In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > Created an attachment (id=137327) [edit] [edit] > > mockbuild log of piklab-0.11.3-2 > > > > Alain, can you rebuild piklab-0.11.3-2 correctly? > > I'll do that tomorrow at work, my home computer isn't powerfull > > > I tried under FC6-devel i386 mock, but it failed. > > Strange, build fine on an uptodate FC5 I checked under FC5 i386_smp mockbuild and it surely succeeded, strange. In your attachement, I found: checking readline/readline.h usability... yes checking readline/readline.h presence... yes checking for readline/readline.h... yes checking for rl_initialize... configure: WARNING: libreadline not found Perhaps it is a problem between versions FC5 : readline-5.0 FC6 : readline-5.1 Under FC5: checking readline/readline.h usability... yes checking readline/readline.h presence... yes checking for readline/readline.h... yes checking for rl_initialize... yes Upstream report me a possible problem, libncurses seems not be detected your log: checking for main in -lcurses... no checking for main in -lncurses... no checking readline/readline.h usability... yes FC5: hecking for main in -lcurses... yes checking readline/readline.h usability... yes checking readline/readline.h presence... yes (In reply to comment #12) > Upstream report me a possible problem, libncurses seems not be detected > your log: > checking for main in -lcurses... no > checking for main in -lncurses... no > checking readline/readline.h usability... yes > > FC5: > hecking for main in -lcurses... yes > checking readline/readline.h usability... yes > checking readline/readline.h presence... yes > Good catch, thanks. Actually, adding "ncurses-devel" for BR seems to work for FC6-devel i386 mockbuild. From changelog of ncurses rpm: * Sat Jul 08 2006 Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar> 5.5-20 - update to patch 20060701 - don't strip libraries, chmod +x them - move .so links to devel package - add gpm-devel to buildrequires - spec cleanup The problem is to know if I have to add this BR or if this BR is missing in a package from which pikloop depends. (In reply to comment #14) > The problem is to know if I have to add this BR or if this BR is missing in a > package from which pikloop depends. piklab of course :-) (In reply to comment #15) > (In reply to comment #14) > > The problem is to know if I have to add this BR or if this BR is missing in > a > > package from which pikloop depends. > > piklab of course :-) Well, configure requests the existence of -lcurses. in FC5, this is in ncurses, which are installed by minimal buildroot. However, in FC6, libcurses.so is moved to ncurses-devel. So you have to add ncurses-devel to BuildRequires and the problem for rebuilding is resolved. I have not yet reviewed this fully, however, * rpmlint complaints about long summary. It says that summary should have no longer than 79 characters. * Please add "ncurses-devel" to BuildRequiers (this should be no problem for FC5, too). * Perhaps /etc/security/consoles.perms.d/ should be /etc/security/console.perms.d/ ? (the latter is owned by pam) (In reply to comment #16) > (In reply to comment #15) > > (In reply to comment #14) > > > The problem is to know if I have to add this BR or if this BR is missing in > > a > > > package from which pikloop depends. > > > > piklab of course :-) > > Well, configure requests the existence of -lcurses. > in FC5, this is in ncurses, which are installed by minimal buildroot. > However, in FC6, libcurses.so is moved to ncurses-devel. > > So you have to add ncurses-devel to BuildRequires and the problem > for rebuilding is resolved. > > I have not yet reviewed this fully, however, > * rpmlint complaints about long summary. It says that summary should > have no longer than 79 characters. I really don't understand, my rpmlint don't complaints! I'll fix... > * Please add "ncurses-devel" to BuildRequiers (this should be no problem > for FC5, too). Before doing this change, I'm waiting one hour or two for an answer to my question on Extras list. > * Perhaps /etc/security/consoles.perms.d/ should be > /etc/security/console.perms.d/ ? (the latter is owned by pam) Oups, you're right, it's a typo. Spec URL: http://linuxelectronique.free.fr/download/fedora/5/SPECS/piklab.spec SRPM URL: http://linuxelectronique.free.fr/download/fedora/5/SRPMS/piklab-0.11.3-3.src.rpm %changelog * Wed Sep 29 2006 Alain Portal <aportal[AT]univ-montp2[DOT]fr> 0.11.3-3 - Add doc about how to complete full feature installation - Fix typo on security pathname - Short summary - Add BR ncurses-devel for FC6 Okay. Full review for piklab. 1. From http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines * Use rpmlint W: piklab dangling-relative-symlink \ /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/piklab/common ../doc/common - Well, this warning itself is no problem, however, the problem is that this symlink is broken. Perhaps this should point to ../common . 2. From http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines : = Nothing. 3. Other things I have noticed: - Well, /etc/security/console.perms.d/pickit1.perms /etc/security/console.perms.d/pickit2.perms These two files are same. Acutally spec file says: %{__install} -pm 644 %{SOURCE3} \ %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/security/console.perms.d/pickit1.perms %{__install} -pm 644 %{SOURCE3} \ %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/security/console.perms.d/pickit2.perms I suspect only one of these two are necessary. Also, while this is not documented, the files under /etc/security/console.perms.d/ seem to have the names like <number>-<specific name>.perms (like 50-default.perms). (In reply to comment #19) > Okay. Full review for piklab. > > 1. From http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines > > * Use rpmlint > W: piklab dangling-relative-symlink \ > /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/piklab/common ../doc/common > - Well, this warning itself is no problem, however, the problem > is that this symlink is broken. > Perhaps this should point to ../common . No. KDE recently changed /usr/share/doc/HTML/$LANG/common in /usr/share/doc/HTML/$LANG/docs/common. See https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-September/msg00794.html and some follow up. > 2. From http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines : > = Nothing. > > 3. Other things I have noticed: > - Well, > > /etc/security/console.perms.d/pickit1.perms > /etc/security/console.perms.d/pickit2.perms > > These two files are same. Acutally spec file says: > %{__install} -pm 644 %{SOURCE3} \ > %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/security/console.perms.d/pickit1.perms > %{__install} -pm 644 %{SOURCE3} \ > %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/security/console.perms.d/pickit2.perms > > I suspect only one of these two are necessary. No, this is an error, the second should be %{SOURCE4} > Also, while this is not documented, the files under > /etc/security/console.perms.d/ seem to have the names like > <number>-<specific name>.perms (like 50-default.perms). I don't know how to choose a number. This configuration is taken from http://piklab.sourceforge.net/support.php section "for distributions using udev and PAM. (In reply to comment #20) > (In reply to comment #19) > > /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/piklab/common ../doc/common > > - Well, this warning itself is no problem, however, the problem > > is that this symlink is broken. > > Perhaps this should point to ../common . > > No. KDE recently changed /usr/share/doc/HTML/$LANG/common > in /usr/share/doc/HTML/$LANG/docs/common. Well, then what package owns /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/docs/common _NOW_ ? I use rawhide, and the newest rawhide kdelibs-3.5.4-6.fc6 owns /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/common, however, my system doesn't have /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/docs/common directory. So my opinition is: * If some package actually owns /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/docs/common, this package should require the package (I am now trying to search for it by yum, however for some reason I don't know yum is very slow for now!!) * If no package owns the directory _NOW_, /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/piklab/common should point to ../common as before till some package gets to own /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/docs/common. > > 3. Other things I have noticed: > > - Well, > > > > /etc/security/console.perms.d/pickit1.perms > > /etc/security/console.perms.d/pickit2.perms > > > > These two files are same. Acutally spec file says: > > %{__install} -pm 644 %{SOURCE3} \ > > %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/security/console.perms.d/pickit1.perms > > %{__install} -pm 644 %{SOURCE3} \ > > %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/security/console.perms.d/pickit2.perms > > > No, this is an error, the second should be %{SOURCE4} Okay. Just fix as it should be. > > > Also, while this is not documented, the files under > > /etc/security/console.perms.d/ seem to have the names like > > <number>-<specific name>.perms (like 50-default.perms). > > I don't know how to choose a number. > This configuration is taken from http://piklab.sourceforge.net/support.php > section "for distributions using udev and PAM. This is not documented and you don't have to add the number if you don't want to. (In reply to comment #21) > > Well, then what package owns /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/docs/common > _NOW_ ? I finished searching for this by yum. The result is, no package owns this (in rawhide). (In reply to comment #21) > > No. KDE recently changed /usr/share/doc/HTML/$LANG/common > > in /usr/share/doc/HTML/$LANG/docs/common. > > Well, then what package owns /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/docs/common > _NOW_ ? I use rawhide, and the newest rawhide kdelibs-3.5.4-6.fc6 > owns /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/common, however, my system doesn't have > /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/docs/common directory. The /usr/share/doc/HTML/$LANG/docs/common is owned by kde-i18n-$LANG. You right, as english is the default language /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/common is owned by kdelibs. But I thought that /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/docs/common was owned by kde-i18n-English, but this package don't exist ;-) This is the exception. So, for all languages but english, common is in $LANG/docs/, for english, it is in $LANG/ > So my opinition is: > * If some package actually owns /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/docs/common, > this package should require the package (I am now trying to search > for it by yum, however for some reason I don't know yum is very > slow for now!!) > * If no package owns the directory _NOW_, > /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/piklab/common should point to ../common > as before till some package gets to own /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/docs/common. > > > > Also, while this is not documented, the files under > > > /etc/security/console.perms.d/ seem to have the names like > > > <number>-<specific name>.perms (like 50-default.perms). > > > > I don't know how to choose a number. > > This configuration is taken from http://piklab.sourceforge.net/support.php > > section "for distributions using udev and PAM. > > This is not documented and you don't have to add the number if > you don't want to. As I don't know choosing a number, I'll don't add. I'll see later when I'll get more informations. Spec URL: http://linuxelectronique.free.fr/download/fedora/5/SPECS/piklab.spec SRPM URL: http://linuxelectronique.free.fr/download/fedora/5/SRPMS/piklab-0.11.3-4.src.rpm %changelog * Wed Sep 29 2006 Alain Portal <aportal[AT]univ-montp2[DOT]fr> 0.11.3-4 - Fix typo for installing pickit2.perms - Add Application category in desktop file - Fix symlink: english is the only language where common directory is in LANG directory while for other, common is in LANG/docs directory Well, /etc/security/console.perms.d/pickit2.perms says: ------------------------------------------------------------- <pickit2>=/dev/pickit2* <console> 0600 <pickit2> 0600 roo ------------------------------------------------------------- Perhaps the last word must be "root". Just fix it. ------------------------------------------------------------------ This package (piklab) is APPROVED by me. OK, really thanks for the review! %changelog * Fri Sep 29 2006 Alain Portal <aportal[AT]univ-montp2[DOT]fr> 0.11.3-5 - Fix typo in pickit2.perms Chitlesh, if you want to take over the maintainship and when Alain agrees, take a procedure according to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/CVSAdminProcedure Alain, could I take over ? What have I to do? I can't access to the link http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/CVSAdminProcedure I get a 502 error I can see the URL correctly. Still can't you access, Alain? If still you cannot, please answer the following questions. * Would you want to be a co-maintainer? * Would you want to be in a CC-list? * Or would you want to make your name completely removed from piklab owner list? (In reply to comment #30) > I can see the URL correctly. Still can't you access, Alain? Still have problem for all the site. > If still you cannot, please answer the following questions. > > * Would you want to be a co-maintainer? > * Would you want to be in a CC-list? > * Or would you want to make your name completely removed from > piklab owner list? After a discussion with Chitlesh, he become co-. maintainer Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: piklab Updated Fedora Owners: cgoorah.au, alain.portal Chitlesh, I added a patch for fr.po, commited the files, tag the branch, but I can't build from home. Please, could you do? Done. Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: piklab Updated Fedora Owners: alain.portal Please, add my home email in comps because I'm on vacation for 6 weeks. Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: piklab New Branches: EL-5 Owners: dionysos cvs done. |