Bug 1265759 - Review Request: mingw-drmingw - Just-in-Time (JIT) debugger for MinGW
Summary: Review Request: mingw-drmingw - Just-in-Time (JIT) debugger for MinGW
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Robert-André Mauchin 🐧
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2015-09-23 17:07 UTC by Thomas Sailer
Modified: 2021-07-31 09:57 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2021-07-31 09:57:14 UTC
Type: Bug
Embargoed:
zebob.m: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Thomas Sailer 2015-09-23 17:07:31 UTC
Spec URL: https://sailer.fedorapeople.org/mingw-drmingw.spec
SRPM URL: https://sailer.fedorapeople.org/mingw-drmingw-0.7.6-1.fc22.src.rpm
Description:
Dr. Mingw is a Just-in-Time (JIT) debugger. When the application
throws an unhandled exception, Dr. Mingw attaches itself to the
application and collects information about the exception, using the
available debugging information.

Dr. Mingw can read debugging information in DWARF format -- generated
by the Gnu C/C++ Compiler, and in a PDB file -- generated by the
Microsoft Visual C++ Compiler. It relies upon the DbgHelp library to
resolve symbols in modules compiled by the Microsoft tools.

The functionality to resolve symbols and dump stack backtraces is
provided as DLLs so it can be embedded on your applications/tools.

Approved MinGW packaging guidelines are here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/MinGW

rpmlint:
$ rpmlint mingw-drmingw.spec /home/sailer/rpmbuild/SRPMS/mingw-drmingw-0.7.6-1.fc22.src.rpm /home/sailer/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/mingw32-drmingw-0.7.6-1.fc22.noarch.rpm /home/sailer/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/mingw32-drmingw-devel-0.7.6-1.fc22.noarch.rpm /home/sailer/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/mingw64-drmingw-0.7.6-1.fc22.noarch.rpm /home/sailer/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/mingw64-drmingw-devel-0.7.6-1.fc22.noarch.rpm /home/sailer/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/mingw32-drmingw-debuginfo-0.7.6-1.fc22.noarch.rpm /home/sailer/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/mingw64-drmingw-debuginfo-0.7.6-1.fc22.noarch.rpm
mingw-drmingw.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unhandled -> unhanded, unhand led, unhand-led
mingw-drmingw.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backtraces -> backtracks, back traces, back-traces
mingw32-drmingw.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Mingw -> Ming, Ming w, Mingy
mingw32-drmingw.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unhandled -> unhanded, unhand led, unhand-led
mingw32-drmingw.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backtraces -> backtracks, back traces, back-traces
mingw32-drmingw-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
mingw64-drmingw.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Mingw -> Ming, Ming w, Mingy
mingw64-drmingw.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unhandled -> unhanded, unhand led, unhand-led
mingw64-drmingw.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backtraces -> backtracks, back traces, back-traces
mingw64-drmingw-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
mingw32-drmingw-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources
mingw64-drmingw-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources
7 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 10 warnings.

The two errors are normal on MinGW and can be ignored.

Scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11197746

Comment 1 Package Review 2020-07-10 00:52:45 UTC
This is an automatic check from review-stats script.

This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry
it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software
into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the
NEEDINFO flag.

You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version
available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase
chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you
need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group.

Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned
and will be closed.
Thank you for your patience.

Comment 3 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2020-07-10 17:34:30 UTC
 - Group: is not used in Fedora

 - Not needed: %defattr(-,root,root,-)

 - Not needed: 

rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT

[…]

%clean
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT

 - Do not use %{__install} or %{__chmod} Macros starting with __ are reserved for rpm private use. 

 - Use install -p to keep timestamps.

 - Package is not installable:

DEBUG util.py:621:  Error: 
DEBUG util.py:621:   Problem 1: conflicting requests
DEBUG util.py:621:    - nothing provides mingw32(libz.dll) needed by mingw32-drmingw-0.9.2-1.fc33.noarch
DEBUG util.py:621:   Problem 2: conflicting requests
DEBUG util.py:621:    - nothing provides mingw64(libz.dll) needed by mingw64-drmingw-0.9.2-1.fc33.noarch
DEBUG util.py:621:   Problem 3: package mingw64-drmingw-devel-0.9.2-1.fc33.noarch requires mingw64-drmingw = 0.9.2-1.fc33, but none of the providers can be installed
DEBUG util.py:621:    - conflicting requests
DEBUG util.py:621:    - nothing provides mingw64(libz.dll) needed by mingw64-drmingw-0.9.2-1.fc33.noarch
DEBUG util.py:621:   Problem 4: package mingw32-drmingw-devel-0.9.2-1.fc33.noarch requires mingw32-drmingw = 0.9.2-1.fc33, but none of the providers can be installed
DEBUG util.py:621:    - conflicting requests
DEBUG util.py:621:    - nothing provides mingw32(libz.dll) needed by mingw32-drmingw-0.9.2-1.fc33.noarch

Comment 4 Thomas Sailer 2020-07-10 18:26:21 UTC
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/sailer/mingw/build/1545139/

I should have fixed all of the above.

The non-installability was caused because a bundled zlib sneaked in - I have replaced it with system zlib

Comment 5 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2020-07-10 20:50:55 UTC
  - Not needed: 

%clean
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT

[!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
     Note: %clean present but not required

 - Not used in Fedora:

Group:          Development/Libraries

 - Buildroot should not be used

[!]: Buildroot is not present
     Note: Buildroot: present but not needed

 - Use %global instead of %define

%global name1 drmingw

[!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
     Note: %define requiring justification: %define name1 drmingw





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

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


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

C/C++:
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.

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", "GNU Lesser General Public License
     (v2.1)", "Expat License", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", "BSD
     3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "GNU Lesser General Public
     License (v2.1 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GNU Lesser General
     Public License (v2 or later)", "zlib/libpng license". 273 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/bob/packaging/review/mingw-drmingw/review-mingw-
     drmingw/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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]: 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 40960 bytes in 4 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]: 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:
[!]: Buildroot is not present
     Note: Buildroot: present but not needed
[!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
     Note: %clean present but not required
[-]: 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
     mingw32-drmingw , mingw32-drmingw-devel , mingw64-drmingw ,
     mingw64-drmingw-devel
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: 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.
[!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
     Note: %define requiring justification: %define name1 drmingw
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[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]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.

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

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Comment 6 Thomas Sailer 2020-07-11 05:21:11 UTC
Thanks for the review, Robert-André!

I have addressed your points:

https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/sailer/mingw/build/1546650/

Comment 7 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2020-07-11 16:14:00 UTC
LGTM, package approved.

Comment 8 Gwyn Ciesla 2020-07-13 04:14:23 UTC
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mingw-drmingw

Comment 9 Mattia Verga 2021-07-31 09:57:14 UTC
Package is available in repos


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.