Spec URL: https://pemensik.fedorapeople.org/emu8051.spec SRPM URL: https://pemensik.fedorapeople.org/emu8051-0~20220911git5dc68127-2.fc41.src.rpm Description: This is a simulator of the 8051/8052 microcontrollers. For sake of simplicity, I'm only referring to 8051, although the emulator can emulate either one. For more information about the 8-bit chip(s), please check out www.8052.com or look up the data sheets. Intel, being the originator of the architecture, naturally has information as well. The 8051 is a pretty easy chip to play with, in both hardware and software. Hence, it's a good chip to use as an example when teaching about computer hardware. Unfortunately, the simulators in use in my school were a bit outdated, so I decided to write a new one. The scope of the emulator is to help test and debug 8051 assembler programs. What is particularily left out is clock-cycle exact simulation of processor pins. (For instance, MUL is a 48-clock operation on the 8051. On which clock cycle does the CPU read the operands? Or write the result?). Such simulation might help in designing some hardware, but for most uses it is unneccessary and complicated. Fedora Account System Username: pemensik
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=117326455
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7419309 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2279277-emu8051/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07419309-emu8051/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.
> Source0: https://github.com/jarikomppa/emu8051/archive/%{gitcommit}.tar.gz#/%{name}-%{gitcommit}.tar.gz You can utilize github arbitrary download names instead of the RPM hacks, e.g.: Source0: https://github.com/jarikomppa/emu8051/archive/%{gitcommit}/%{name}-%{gitcommit}.tar.gz > BuildRequires: gcc make Maybe better to add each requirement on individual line. It's better to manage and more clear, e.g. you can easily comment out individual deps. > sed -e "s,^BIN := emu,BIN := %{name}," -i Makefile Why not just use: %make_build BIN=%{name} You could omit 'sed' build requirement then. > install -m 0755 %{name} %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/%{name} Please use '-p' to preserve time stamps.
Maybe PR fix upstream for: mainview.c:596:38: warning: ' ' flag used with ‘%u’ gnu_printf format [-Wformat=] 596 | wprintw(miscview, "\nCycles :% 10u\n", clocks); | ^
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: - Please fix rpmlint where appropriate. - Please use 'install -p' as noted earlier. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [-]: 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 [-]: 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]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 5141 bytes in 1 files. [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. I did minimal testing, but it seems basic function is OK. [x]: Latest version is packaged. Currently the latest snapshot. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. Upstream doesn't support it. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. No upstream tests. [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. Please use 'install -p' [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]: 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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) False positive, probably autochangelog. [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: emu8051-0~20220911git5dc68127-2.fc39.x86_64.rpm emu8051-debuginfo-0~20220911git5dc68127-2.fc39.x86_64.rpm emu8051-debugsource-0~20220911git5dc68127-2.fc39.x86_64.rpm emu8051-0~20220911git5dc68127-2.fc39.src.rpm =================================================================================== rpmlint session starts =================================================================================== rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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/tmptu3gd7mo')] checks: 32, packages: 4 emu8051.src: E: spelling-error ('microcontrollers', '%description -l en_US microcontrollers -> micro controllers, micro-controllers, microelectronics') emu8051.src: E: spelling-error ('www', '%description -l en_US www -> WWW, wow') emu8051.src: E: spelling-error ('particularily', '%description -l en_US particularily -> particularly, particularity, particularize') emu8051.src: E: spelling-error ('unneccessary', '%description -l en_US unneccessary -> unnecessary, unnecessarily, necessary') Probably spelling errors emu8051.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('microcontrollers', '%description -l en_US microcontrollers -> micro controllers, micro-controllers, microelectronics') emu8051.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('www', '%description -l en_US www -> WWW, wow') emu8051.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('particularily', '%description -l en_US particularily -> particularly, particularity, particularize') emu8051.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('unneccessary', '%description -l en_US unneccessary -> unnecessary, unnecessarily, necessary') emu8051.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary emu8051 emu8051.src: E: description-line-too-long What is particularily left out is clock-cycle exact simulation of processor pins. emu8051.src: E: description-line-too-long (For instance, MUL is a 48-clock operation on the 8051. On which clock cycle does emu8051.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long What is particularily left out is clock-cycle exact simulation of processor pins. emu8051.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long (For instance, MUL is a 48-clock operation on the 8051. On which clock cycle does Please fix line lengths ============================================ 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 12 errors, 1 warnings, 16 filtered, 12 badness; has taken 1.5 s ============================================= Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: emu8051-debuginfo-0~20220911git5dc68127-2.fc39.x86_64.rpm =================================================================================== rpmlint session starts =================================================================================== rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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/tmpayefemy1')] checks: 32, packages: 1 ============================================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s ============================================== Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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: 32, packages: 3 emu8051.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('microcontrollers', '%description -l en_US microcontrollers -> micro controllers, micro-controllers, microelectronics') emu8051.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('www', '%description -l en_US www -> WWW, wow') emu8051.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('particularily', '%description -l en_US particularily -> particularly, particularity, particularize') emu8051.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('unneccessary', '%description -l en_US unneccessary -> unnecessary, unnecessarily, necessary') emu8051.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary emu8051 emu8051.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long What is particularily left out is clock-cycle exact simulation of processor pins. emu8051.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long (For instance, MUL is a 48-clock operation on the 8051. On which clock cycle does 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 1 warnings, 13 filtered, 6 badness; has taken 1.6 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/jarikomppa/emu8051/archive/5dc681275151c4a5d7b85ec9ff4ceb1b25abd5a8.tar.gz#/emu8051-5dc681275151c4a5d7b85ec9ff4ceb1b25abd5a8.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9302ad27c4895e696b73cb9d9ccdaf5a00e180caa97b88e5d1d529b4113cfa64 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9302ad27c4895e696b73cb9d9ccdaf5a00e180caa97b88e5d1d529b4113cfa64 Requires -------- emu8051 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libncurses.so.6()(64bit) libtinfo.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) emu8051-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): emu8051-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- emu8051: emu8051 emu8051(x86-64) emu8051-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) emu8051-debuginfo emu8051-debuginfo(x86-64) emu8051-debugsource: emu8051-debugsource emu8051-debugsource(x86-64) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/yarda/git-fedora/emu8051/2279277-emu8051/srpm/emu8051.spec 2024-05-06 19:02:38.390120214 +0200 +++ /home/yarda/git-fedora/emu8051/2279277-emu8051/srpm-unpacked/emu8051.spec 2024-05-06 02:00:00.000000000 +0200 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.6.3) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 2; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + %global forgeurl0 https://github.com/jarikomppa/emu8051 %global gitcommit 5dc681275151c4a5d7b85ec9ff4ceb1b25abd5a8 @@ -58,3 +68,12 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Mon May 06 2024 Petr Menšík <pemensik> - 0~20220911git5dc68127-2 +- Use autorelease + +* Mon May 06 2024 Petr Menšík <pemensik> - 0~20220911git5dc68127-1 +- Initial spec file + +* Sun Sep 11 2022 Jari Komppa <jari.komppa> +- RPMAUTOSPEC: unresolvable merge +## END: Generated by rpmautospec Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-39-x86_64 -b 2279277 Buildroot used: fedora-39-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Perl, Python, SugarActivity, R, Java, Haskell, fonts, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
(In reply to Jaroslav Škarvada from comment #4) > Maybe PR fix upstream for: > mainview.c:596:38: warning: ' ' flag used with ‘%u’ gnu_printf format > [-Wformat=] > 596 | wprintw(miscview, "\nCycles :% 10u\n", clocks); > | ^ Already proposed at: https://github.com/jarikomppa/emu8051/pull/35
(In reply to Jaroslav Škarvada from comment #3) > > Source0: https://github.com/jarikomppa/emu8051/archive/%{gitcommit}.tar.gz#/%{name}-%{gitcommit}.tar.gz > You can utilize github arbitrary download names instead of the RPM hacks, > e.g.: > Source0: > https://github.com/jarikomppa/emu8051/archive/%{gitcommit}/%{name}- > %{gitcommit}.tar.gz Okay. I tend to not find special github correct paths, so I have derived this from download button link on web UI. But okay, your is a bit nicer. > > BuildRequires: gcc make > Maybe better to add each requirement on individual line. It's better to > manage and more clear, e.g. you can easily comment out individual deps. Unless something very important changes, project like this cannot omit gcc or make. This does not change anything. > > sed -e "s,^BIN := emu,BIN := %{name}," -i Makefile > Why not just use: > %make_build BIN=%{name} > You could omit 'sed' build requirement then. Yeah. I made this before I have realized Makefile does not provide install target anyway. So I could rename it just in install command. > > > install -m 0755 %{name} %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/%{name} > Please use '-p' to preserve time stamps. I do not see any point in keeping time stamp of build, which is different on each rebuild anyway. What is the point for keeping always changing stamp? It makes perfect sense on content from source archive. Not on always regenerated build pieces. In short. I see every MUST passed. Only with minor formatting or style issues. Where is my + flag then? :-o
> > > BuildRequires: gcc make > > Maybe better to add each requirement on individual line. It's better to > > manage and more clear, e.g. you can easily comment out individual deps. > > Unless something very important changes, project like this cannot omit gcc > or make. This does not change anything. > Just minor nit for consistent formatting. With consistent formatting it's also more clear on the quick overview. > > > install -m 0755 %{name} %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/%{name} > > Please use '-p' to preserve time stamps. > > I do not see any point in keeping time stamp of build, which is different on > each rebuild anyway. What is the point for keeping always changing stamp? It > makes perfect sense on content from source archive. Not on always > regenerated build pieces. > The rpm build has multiple phases which are usually run sequentially and without timeout, but they don't need to. Theoretically, there could be any delay between the phases (hours, days) or the phases could run multiple time. E.g. there could be one build phase and multiple install phases. The timestamp should indicate when the binary was build, i.e. when it was created by compiler not when the file was installed. That's the purpose of the '-p' flag.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/emu8051
FEDORA-2024-2f541c25ef (emu8051-0~20220911git5dc68127-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-2f541c25ef
FEDORA-2024-2f541c25ef (emu8051-0~20220911git5dc68127-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2024-dbea0e48ec (emu8051-0~20220911git5dc68127-1.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-dbea0e48ec
FEDORA-2024-b738c7a82f (emu8051-0~20220911git5dc68127-1.fc39) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-b738c7a82f
FEDORA-2024-b738c7a82f has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-b738c7a82f \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-b738c7a82f See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2024-dbea0e48ec has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-dbea0e48ec \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-dbea0e48ec See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2024-dbea0e48ec (emu8051-0~20220911git5dc68127-1.fc40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2024-b738c7a82f (emu8051-0~20220911git5dc68127-1.fc39) has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.