Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~brouhaha/yosys/yosys.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~brouhaha/yosys/yosys-0.6.0-1.20160909git5199aaf.fc24.src.rpm Description: Yosys is a framework for Verilog RTL synthesis. It currently has extensive Verilog-2005 support and provides a basic set of synthesis algorithms for various application domains. Fedora Account System Username: brouhaha Currently there's an ExcludeArch: aarch64, because it fails regression testing. An issue has been opened upstream and is noted in the RPM spec. Koji scratch build for Rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15622755 Can be used with arachne-pnr and icestorm as a fully open-source toolchain for FPGA design. arachne-pnr and icestorm package reviews are #1375383 and #1375380, respectively.
Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~brouhaha/yosys/yosys.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~brouhaha/yosys/yosys-0.6.0-1.20160909git5199aaf.fc24.src.rpm aarch64 problem turned out to be due to non-deterministic regression test generation; realmath floating point tests include operations not guaranteed by IEEE 754 to be bit-accurate. Added a patch to Makefile and test scripts to allow explicit specification of PRNG seed. Submitted a pull request upstream. Spec file and SRPM updated; now builds fine on 32-bit and 64-bit x86 and ARM.
koji scratch build for Rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15640020
Updated to latest upstream snapshot, which merges my patch for deterministic regression testing. Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~brouhaha/yosys/yosys.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~brouhaha/yosys/yosys-0.6.0-1.20160923git8f5bf6d.fc24.src.rpm
Hello Eric! I've found a few things we need to address below. To get approval, you will need to address at least the items in the MUST section. The others are suggestions for you. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: These BR are not needed: gawk See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 ===== MUST items ===== bowlofeggs notes: C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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. [-]: 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "ISC", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 574 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/rbarlow/reviews/1375765-yosys/licensecheck.txt bowlofeggs: It seems that the license is complicated here. You should probably write: ISC, MIT/X11 (BSD Like), LGPL 2.1, and GPL v3 in the license field. The GPL code seems to be in .v files only, so it is not being combined with the other licenses in my analysis. [-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. bowlofeggs: Though it doesn't appear that viz.js is bundled, it does appear to be a build dependency. I am not certain whether this is or is not allowed so we should do research to find out (if you know it to be and can link me to documentation, please do!). It would certainly be cleaner if viz.js were packaged. I am also not certain what it is being used for. Does it get used to generate the pdfs in some way? If it isn't truly needed, perhaps we can just patch the Makefile so it doesn't try to use it. [!]: Changelog in prescribed format. bowlofeggs: You should reference the BZ in the changelog, like: - Initial version (#1375765). [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). bowlofeggs: You should use a macro for /usr/bin/abc [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [!]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. bowlofeggs: The /usr/share/yosys/python3/smtio.py file doesn't belong in /usr/share as far as I can tell, and also doesn't have a reason to be executable. It seems to only define some classes and data structures. I believe it belongs in %{python2_sitelib}/smtio.py instead. Is seems to be used by /usr/bin/yosys-smtbmc but that code is mangling the Python path to find this library. I suggest working with upstream to remove the path manipulation and to put smtio.py in the python2 sitelib where it belongs. Then it can just be imported naturally. [-]: 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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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: [!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag Note: Could not download Source2: http://http.debian.net/debian/pool/main/y/yosys/yosys_0.6-6.debian.tar.xz See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. bowlofeggs: I recommend filing an issue upstream to request a LICENSE file in the repo, and then documenting a URL to your ticket in your spec file. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in yosys- doc , yosys-devel , yosys-debuginfo bowlofeggs: You could put the %{?_isa} on your subpackages. [?]: 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. [!]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments bowlofeggs: I think it's upset about the man pages URL returning 404 [-]: 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. bowlofeggs: Upstream does appear to have a folder called tests. [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]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 3880960 bytes in /usr/share bowlofeggs: I suggest moving the non-arch data into a noarch package. [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: yosys-0.6.0-1.20160923git8f5bf6d.fc26.x86_64.rpm yosys-doc-0.6.0-1.20160923git8f5bf6d.fc26.x86_64.rpm yosys-devel-0.6.0-1.20160923git8f5bf6d.fc26.x86_64.rpm yosys-debuginfo-0.6.0-1.20160923git8f5bf6d.fc26.x86_64.rpm yosys-0.6.0-1.20160923git8f5bf6d.fc26.src.rpm yosys.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Yosys yosys.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Yosys yosys.src: W: invalid-url Source2: http://http.debian.net/debian/pool/main/y/yosys/yosys_0.6-6.debian.tar.xz HTTP Error 404: Not Found 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: yosys-debuginfo-0.6.0-1.20160923git8f5bf6d.fc26.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- yosys.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Yosys 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Requires -------- yosys-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/bash yosys yosys (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 abc graphviz libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libffi.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libreadline.so.6()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libtcl8.6.so()(64bit) python-xdot rtld(GNU_HASH) yosys-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): yosys yosys-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- yosys-devel: yosys-devel yosys-devel(x86-64) yosys: yosys yosys(x86-64) yosys-doc: yosys-doc yosys-doc(x86-64) yosys-debuginfo: yosys-debuginfo yosys-debuginfo(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/cliffordwolf/yosys/archive/8f5bf6de32bcc478312d8f5410826b4894ebadba.tar.gz#/yosys-8f5bf6d.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 624b5c74dfc8374810b762aefec6dc3cb215811d1b6807c82a08f149d3dcf92a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 624b5c74dfc8374810b762aefec6dc3cb215811d1b6807c82a08f149d3dcf92a https://github.com/mdaines/viz.js/releases/download/0.0.3/viz.js : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0eb4139c4a6067e73585338e32e9f7515490edd885d16147322a48e43b120012 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0eb4139c4a6067e73585338e32e9f7515490edd885d16147322a48e43b120012 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1375765 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~brouhaha/yosys/yosys.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~brouhaha/yosys/yosys-0.6.0-2.20160923git8f5bf6d.fc24.src.rpm Note that no action was taken for the following: * bundled viz.js - The file viz.js isn't bundled into the generated RPMs, so the bundling policy, which is based primarily on security concerns, is not applicable. In particular, following the bundling policy would require a "Provides: bundled(viz.js)=0.0.3", but that would clearly be wrong, as the package doesn't provide it. * /usr/share/yosys/python3/smtio.py - Not moved. There is considerable precedent for application-specific Python files to be in /usr/share/%{name}, e.g., firewalld, hplip, qtcreator, setroubleshoot, virt-manager, etc. I've reviewed FHS 3.0 and am not convinced that having application-specific Python files in /usr/share/%{name} actually contravenes any FHS 3.0 requirement. * tarball without URL - No actual problem. Perhaps was triggered by outdated URL for Debian pool. * %check tests directory - No actual problem. Tests are present and are correctly tested in %check section. These requested changes have been made: * license tag - Changed to include additional licenses. * changelog format - Changed to include review bug number. * /usr/bin/abc - Changed to use %{_bindir}. * /usr/share/yosys/python3/smtio.p - Had previously marked executable to fix rpmlint error. Removed the chmod, so now rpmlint reports that error. Which is better, having the rpmlint error, or having the file unnecessarily marked as executable? Since it contains no main program, I felt that having it marked executable was inconsequential. * source tag - Debian - URL updated. Note, Debian pool changes often, deletes older versions of their patches. URL was correct when original review was submitted. * license texts - Requested upstream, https://github.com/cliffordwolf/yosys/issues/263, comment added to files section in spec. * versioned dependency in subpackages: - Subpackage doc dependency on main package *removed*, as docs can stand alone. - Subpackage devel dependency on main package made arch-specific. * /usr/share/yosys is architecture-independent: - Moved /usr/share/yosys to noarch subpackage. - Main package made dependent on -share subpackage.
(In reply to Eric Smith from comment #5) > Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~brouhaha/yosys/yosys.spec > SRPM URL: > https://fedorapeople.org/~brouhaha/yosys/yosys-0.6.0-2.20160923git8f5bf6d. > fc24.src.rpm > > Note that no action was taken for the following: Thanks for pointing these out! > * bundled viz.js - The file viz.js isn't bundled into the generated RPMs, > so the bundling policy, which is based primarily on security concerns, is > not applicable. In particular, following the bundling policy would require a > "Provides: bundled(viz.js)=0.0.3", but that would clearly be wrong, as the > package doesn't provide it. I'm convinced and I agree with you now. > * /usr/share/yosys/python3/smtio.py - Not moved. There is considerable > precedent for application-specific Python files to be in /usr/share/%{name}, > e.g., firewalld, hplip, qtcreator, setroubleshoot, virt-manager, etc. I've > reviewed FHS 3.0 and am not convinced that having application-specific > Python files in /usr/share/%{name} actually contravenes any FHS 3.0 > requirement. I still think this *should* be moved, but due to your citations we can keep it the way it is. > * tarball without URL - No actual problem. Perhaps was triggered by outdated > URL for Debian pool. OK. FYI, the current URL is also 404, but I see the problem with the disappearing files. I recommend working with upstream to get that man page included there so we don't depend on Debian's man pages (and then Debian can also get them from upstream!) > * %check tests directory - No actual problem. Tests are present and are > correctly tested in %check section. OK > These requested changes have been made: > > * license tag - Changed to include additional licenses. I read the issue you filed upstream, and it seems that some of the licenses included in the current spec file only apply to tests and not to the distributed package. I recommend trimming the licenses down to what is in the distributed code, but I'm not sure whether the license field should be about the entire source tree, or just the bits we distribute. I'll leave that decision up to you. > * /usr/share/yosys/python3/smtio.p - Had previously marked executable to fix > rpmlint error. Removed the chmod, so now rpmlint reports that error. Which > is better, having the rpmlint error, or having the file unnecessarily marked > as executable? Since it contains no main program, I felt that having it > marked executable was inconsequential. It doesn't make sense for the file to be executable so I think the current state is better. If you want to silence rpmlint, you can drop the #!/usr/bin/python3 from the top of the source file so rpmlint doesn't think it's a script. It isn't a script anyway, so that line really isn't necessary. > * versioned dependency in subpackages: > - Subpackage doc dependency on main package *removed*, as docs can stand > alone. > - Subpackage devel dependency on main package made arch-specific. > * /usr/share/yosys is architecture-independent: > - Moved /usr/share/yosys to noarch subpackage. > - Main package made dependent on -share subpackage. The share subpackage is nice! There's a new message from fedora-review with the current spec that says that there is a large amount of data (3143680 bytes) in /usr/share, and it suggests moving that data to a noarch subpackage. Since you now have a -share package, perhaps that would be a nice improvement. One other message from fedora-review that you might consider fixing - it says that gawk isn't needed in BuildRequires. You can change that or not at your option. There is one thing you do need to fix for sure: [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/doc/yosys randy: You can probably change the doc files section to just have %{_docdir}/%{name} Once you have that directory ownership fixed let me know!
(In reply to Randy Barlow from comment #6) > It doesn't make sense for the file to be executable so I think the current > state is better. If you want to silence rpmlint, you can drop the > #!/usr/bin/python3 from the top of the source file so rpmlint doesn't think > it's a script. It isn't a script anyway, so that line really isn't necessary. I'd also recommend sending such a patch upstream. The #! isn't needed unless that script is meant to do something, but it's really just library code.
Whoops, I hadn't meant to mark this approved just yet. BTW, my comment about the large data is /usr/share is also at your option.
Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~brouhaha/yosys/yosys.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~brouhaha/yosys/yosys-0.7-1.fc24.src.rpm Note: no change was made regarding the share subpackage, as it was already being built as noarch. I'm not sure why fedora-review flagged that. Updated to upstream 0.7 release. Updated Debian tarball URL. Requested upstream include the man pages, referenced URL of issue in comment in spec. License field changed to "ISC and MIT". Shebang removed from smtio.py. Change requested upstream, referenced URL of issue in comment in spec. Removed gawk from BuildRequires. Fixed ownership of documentation directory.
Looks good, nice work! Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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. [-]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "ISC", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 573 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/rbarlow/reviews/yosys/licensecheck.txt [-]: 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. [x]: 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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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: [x]: 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in yosys- doc , yosys-share , yosys-devel , yosys-debuginfo [?]: 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. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 3194880 bytes in /usr/share [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). Rpmlint ------- Checking: yosys-0.7-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm yosys-doc-0.7-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm yosys-share-0.7-1.fc26.noarch.rpm yosys-devel-0.7-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm yosys-debuginfo-0.7-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm yosys-0.7-1.fc26.src.rpm yosys.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Yosys yosys-share.noarch: W: no-documentation yosys.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Yosys yosys.src:1: W: macro-in-comment %global yosys.src:3: W: macro-in-comment %global yosys.src:3: W: macro-in-comment %{commit0} yosys.src:10: W: macro-in-comment %{shortcommit0} yosys.src:16: W: macro-in-comment %{name} yosys.src:16: W: macro-in-comment %{commit0} yosys.src:88: W: macro-in-comment %setup yosys.src:88: W: macro-in-comment %{name} yosys.src:88: W: macro-in-comment %{commit0} yosys.src:98: W: macro-in-comment %setup yosys.src:98: W: macro-in-comment %{name} yosys.src:98: W: macro-in-comment %{commit0} 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 15 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: yosys-debuginfo-0.7-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- yosys.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Yosys yosys-share.noarch: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Requires -------- yosys-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/bash yosys(x86-64) yosys (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 abc graphviz libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libffi.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libreadline.so.6()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libtcl8.6.so()(64bit) python-xdot rtld(GNU_HASH) yosys-share yosys-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): yosys-share (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): yosys-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- yosys-devel: yosys-devel yosys-devel(x86-64) yosys: yosys yosys(x86-64) yosys-doc: yosys-doc yosys-doc(x86-64) yosys-share: yosys-share yosys-debuginfo: yosys-debuginfo yosys-debuginfo(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- http://http.debian.net/debian/pool/main/y/yosys/yosys_0.7-2.debian.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ea89aa745fcd82de994b05cd37d14b255dc6cbd4972b5c33d8e47260e15b2918 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ea89aa745fcd82de994b05cd37d14b255dc6cbd4972b5c33d8e47260e15b2918 https://github.com/cliffordwolf/yosys/archive/yosys-0.7.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3df986d0c6bf20b78193456e11c660f2ad935cc126537c2dc5726e78896d6e6e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3df986d0c6bf20b78193456e11c660f2ad935cc126537c2dc5726e78896d6e6e https://github.com/mdaines/viz.js/releases/download/0.0.3/viz.js : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0eb4139c4a6067e73585338e32e9f7515490edd885d16147322a48e43b120012 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0eb4139c4a6067e73585338e32e9f7515490edd885d16147322a48e43b120012 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -rn yosys-0.7-1.fc24.src.rpm Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/yosys
yosys-0.7-1.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-30a802e8c3
yosys-0.7-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 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-2016-30a802e8c3
yosys-0.7-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-d4d3573847
yosys-0.7-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
yosys-0.7-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 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-2016-d4d3573847
yosys-0.7-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.