Spec URL: https://kathenas.fedorapeople.org/development/fedora/rawhide/for_review/bcunit/bcunit.spec SRPM URL: https://kathenas.fedorapeople.org/development/fedora/rawhide/for_review/bcunit/bcunit-5.2.0-1.fc39.src.rpm Description: BCUnit is a unit testing framework for C, derived from CUnit. (B)CUnit provides various interfaces to the framework, some of which are platform dependent (e.g. curses on *nix). The framework complies with the conventional structure of test cases bundled into suites which are registered with the framework for running. Fedora Account System Username: kathenas Additional Information: General: [1]: 'bcunit' is a BuildRequires of 'bctoolbox' (unpackaged as yet) that is a BuildRequires of 'ortp' that is in fedora but vastly out of date. [2]: 'bcunit' is a BuildRequires for many packages in the 'linphone' stack of packages. [3]: New package - Only for fedora rawhide/39 and going forward. Changes to any stable release would be too disruptive. rpmlint: [1]: (S)RPM signed with the kathenas key. [2]: FSF address errors are reported upstream via links below. - https://github.com/BelledonneCommunications/bcunit/issues/3 - https://github.com/BelledonneCommunications/bcunit/issues/4 Note: Only way to report bugs is via github mirror repos and not via the gitlab.linphone.org instance which does not allow registration.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5627909 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2177363-bcunit/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05627909-bcunit/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: bcunit-doc : /usr/share/doc/BCUnit/headers/Automated.h bcunit-doc : /usr/share/doc/BCUnit/headers/BCUnit_intl.h bcunit-doc : /usr/share/doc/BCUnit/headers/Basic.h bcunit-doc : /usr/share/doc/BCUnit/headers/CUCurses.h bcunit-doc : /usr/share/doc/BCUnit/headers/CUError.h bcunit-doc : /usr/share/doc/BCUnit/headers/Console.h bcunit-doc : /usr/share/doc/BCUnit/headers/MyMem.h bcunit-doc : /usr/share/doc/BCUnit/headers/TestDB.h bcunit-doc : /usr/share/doc/BCUnit/headers/TestRun.h bcunit-doc : /usr/share/doc/BCUnit/headers/Util.h bcunit-doc : /usr/share/doc/BCUnit/headers/Win.h bcunit-doc : /usr/share/doc/BCUnit/headers/wxWidget.h See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_devel_packages ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "GNU Library General Public License, Version 2.0", "GNU Library General Public License v2 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]". 115 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/bcunit/2177363-bcunit/licensecheck.txt [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: 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. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ ]: 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 30720 bytes in 5 files. [ ]: 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 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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: [?]: 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). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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. [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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]: 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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: bcunit-5.2.0-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm bcunit-devel-5.2.0-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm bcunit-doc-5.2.0-1.fc39.noarch.rpm bcunit-debuginfo-5.2.0-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm bcunit-debugsource-5.2.0-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm bcunit-5.2.0-1.fc39.src.rpm ======================================================================== rpmlint session starts ======================================================================= rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp6l_rylk0')] checks: 31, packages: 6 bcunit-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation bcunit.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/bcunit/COPYING bcunit-doc.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/BCUnit/fdl.html ========================================= 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 2 badness; has taken 3.6 s ======================================== Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: bcunit-debuginfo-5.2.0-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm ======================================================================== rpmlint session starts ======================================================================= rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp2sb699ak')] checks: 31, packages: 1 ========================================= 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s ======================================== Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 5 bcunit-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation bcunit-doc.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/BCUnit/fdl.html bcunit.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/bcunit/COPYING 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 2 badness; has taken 1.4 s Source checksums ---------------- https://gitlab.linphone.org/BC/public/bcunit/-/archive/5.2.0/bcunit-5.2.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 67b9186c42bd91d076b33063a33837dbb11a753eb35ad7ed8db8d65cdf88ef83 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 67b9186c42bd91d076b33063a33837dbb11a753eb35ad7ed8db8d65cdf88ef83 Requires -------- bcunit (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) bcunit-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config bcunit(x86-64) libbcunit.so.1()(64bit) bcunit-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): bcunit-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): bcunit-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- bcunit: bcunit bcunit(x86-64) libbcunit.so.1()(64bit) bcunit-devel: bcunit-devel bcunit-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(bcunit) bcunit-doc: bcunit-doc bcunit-debuginfo: bcunit-debuginfo bcunit-debuginfo(x86-64) debuginfo(build-id) libbcunit.so.1.0.1-5.2.0-1.fc39.x86_64.debug()(64bit) bcunit-debugsource: bcunit-debugsource bcunit-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2177363 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: Java, Haskell, Perl, Ocaml, Python, Ruby, R, SugarActivity, fonts, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH Comments: a) FSF errors are fine, it uses LGPL2 and the license text on the FSF website has the old address https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.0.html The text of the license file should not be changed, please modify issue to indicate the text should be the same as on the FSF website. b) Most of the files seem to be under LGPL2. CAn this be added to the spec, as well as a license breakdown? GPL licenses seem to only be used in CMake files which are not packaged. c) Is it possible to test that the library works by using one/some of the examples? d) May consider putting cmake files in /usr/share/cmake/bcunit or /usr/lib64/cmake/bcunit e) Can you raise an issue upstream about soname? If they will not use one, it should start with 0, otherwise perhaps upstream will use a soname that matches the release number https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_downstream_so_name_versioning f) Why are header files packaged in the documentation? g) %ldconfig_scriptlets is typically not needed in the spec file, it will run automatically
Trigger new Copr build with updated package. Spec URL: https://kathenas.fedorapeople.org/development/fedora/rawhide/for_review/bcunit/bcunit.spec SRPM URL: https://kathenas.fedorapeople.org/development/fedora/rawhide/for_review/bcunit/bcunit-5.2.0-1.fc39.src.rpm
Created attachment 1953866 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 5627909 to 5711034
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5711034 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2177363-bcunit/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05711034-bcunit/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
<snip> > > Comments: > a) FSF errors are fine, it uses LGPL2 and the license text on the FSF > website has the old address > https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.0.html > The text of the license file should not be changed, please modify issue to > indicate the text should > be the same as on the FSF website. Added info to the upstream bug reports. Had no contact as yet. > b) Most of the files seem to be under LGPL2. CAn this be added to the spec, > as well as a license > breakdown? GPL licenses seem to only be used in CMake files which are not > packaged. This was an error on my part. Now just LGPL2. > c) Is it possible to test that the library works by using one/some of the > examples? Examples are fixed nd now included in the -devel package. > d) May consider putting cmake files in /usr/share/cmake/bcunit or > /usr/lib64/cmake/bcunit cmake files are now located under: /usr/lib64/cmake/BCunit. Have not corrected folder naming. Will look to get upstream to change it rather than patch for it. > e) Can you raise an issue upstream about soname? If they will not use one, > it should start > with 0, otherwise perhaps upstream will use a soname that matches the > release number > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ > #_downstream_so_name_versioning I will upstream issue this, but have added a note in spec file why it is '1' currently. > f) Why are header files packaged in the documentation? The header files of that location (now in -devel) package are linked to within the html documentation files. > g) %ldconfig_scriptlets is typically not needed in the spec file, it will > run automatically Removed. Notes: Reworked and patched FTBFS problems ad others. Dropped not needed and painful -doc package. Regards Phil
Thanks for the updates. Can you enable tests? No need to package binary examples (though may build and possibly run them as smoke tests): bcunit-devel.x86_64: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share /usr/share/BCUnit/Examples/Automated/AutomatedTest bcunit-devel.x86_64: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share /usr/share/BCUnit/Examples/Basic/BasicTest bcunit-devel.x86_64: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share /usr/share/BCUnit/Examples/Console/ConsoleTest bcunit-devel.x86_64: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share /usr/share/BCUnit/Examples/Curses/CursesTest
> Recommends: %{name}-doc = %{version} The -doc subpackage does not exist in the spec file
(In reply to Felix Wang from comment #8) > > Recommends: %{name}-doc = %{version} > > The -doc subpackage does not exist in the spec file Thanks. Removed for next upload.
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #7) > Thanks for the updates. > Can you enable tests? > No need to package binary examples (though may build and possibly run them > as smoke tests): > bcunit-devel.x86_64: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share > /usr/share/BCUnit/Examples/Automated/AutomatedTest > bcunit-devel.x86_64: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share > /usr/share/BCUnit/Examples/Basic/BasicTest > bcunit-devel.x86_64: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share > /usr/share/BCUnit/Examples/Console/ConsoleTest > bcunit-devel.x86_64: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share > /usr/share/BCUnit/Examples/Curses/CursesTest Tests cannot be enabled at this time as they are FTBFS. I would like to do a future fix with upstream involvement. Have added a conditional for doing test builds with Examples enabled or disabled. Will not be enabled in release builds. Did removal of stray reference to -doc package as spotted by Felix Wang.
Created attachment 1954073 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 5711034 to 5715604
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5715604 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2177363-bcunit/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05715604-bcunit/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
There are a number of warnings during compilation: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2177363-bcunit/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05715604-bcunit/builder-live.log.gz May want to report these upstream. Have not fully tested functionality, but must items seem ok. Approved.
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #14) > There are a number of warnings during compilation: > https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora- > review-2177363-bcunit/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05715604-bcunit/builder-live.log. > gz > > May want to report these upstream. Have not fully tested functionality, but > must items seem ok. > > Approved. Many thanks Benson. Further work and upstream bug reports will take place as my custodianship of this package continues. Regards Phil
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/bcunit
Consider also https://gitlab.com/cunity/cunit which seems to be actively maintained but is not the source for https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/CUnit/CUnit/
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #17) > Consider also https://gitlab.com/cunity/cunit which seems to be actively > maintained but > is not the source for https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/CUnit/CUnit/ I am just working the Linphone stack currently from Belledonne Communications. If projects like the one you referenced and the company concerned worked to extend CUnit together would be good, but I think they are following their own paths.