Hide Forgot
Spec URL: http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/mcpp/mcpp-2.6.3-2.spec?download SRPM URL: http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/mcpp/mcpp-2.6.3-2.src.rpm?download Description: MCPP is an alternative C/C++ preprocessor with the highest conformance, implementated by Kiyoshi Matsui. It supports multiple standards: K&R, ISO C90, ISO C99, and ISO C++98. MCPP is especially useful for debugging the source program which use complicated macros and also useful for checking portability of the source. Though mcpp could be built as a replacement of GCC's resident proprocessor or as a subroutine called from some other main program, this package installs only a stand-alone program named 'mcpp' which behaves independent from GCC. This is my first rpm package, and I am seeking a sponsor to be reviewed.
Hello, Matsui-san: First please make yourself be familiar with the guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines and http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines Then: A. description section: * libdir - rpmlint shows: -------------------------------------------------------- E: mcpp configure-without-libdir-spec -------------------------------------------------------- For this package it seems okay, however please explain why not using libdir for ths configure is not a problem. Also consider to use %configure macro. * disttag - Using %{?dist} tag on Release number is prefered to make it easy to maintain a package over several branches Check: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/DistTag * SourceURL - Please refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL * Prefix - Do you intend to make this package relocatable? If so, please explain why you want. If not, setting Prefix is forbidden. B. setup/build/install stage: * macros - If you don't intend to make this relocatable, please use proper macros (%{_mandir} for /usr/share/man, %{_datadir} for /usr/share, ....) * parallel make - Support parallel make if possible. * Compilar flags - Fedora specific compilation flags are not honored. Mock build log says: ---------------------------------------------------------- make[2]: Entering directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/mcpp-2.6.3/src' gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I. -g -O2 -c -o mcpp-main.o `test -f 'main.c' || echo './'`main.c ---------------------------------------------------------- while Fedora specific compilation flags are: ---------------------------------------------------------- [tasaka1@localhost ~]$ rpm --eval %optflags -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m32 -march=i386 -mtune=generic -fasynchronous-unwind-tables ---------------------------------------------------------- (on FC-devel i386) C Files entry * Documentation entry - Files/Directories under %{_docdir} (/usr/share/doc) are automatically marked as documentation * Locale specific documentation - Locale specific documents must be marked as %lang(<lang>) (i.e. %lang(ja) %doc ..... , for example) * Encoding - doc-jp/mcpp-manual.html is encoded with EUC-JP, while Fedora default encoding is UTF-8. Please change (by iconv, for example). * Documentation The following documents are preferred to be included as a documentation. ---------------------------------------------------------- ChangeLog* ---------------------------------------------------------- D. clean section ---------------------------------------------------------- make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT uninstall make distclean ---------------------------------------------------------- - Why do these required? E. test execution - These are some directory which "seem" to be used for %check section. If possible, add %check section and do some tests in the section.
Created attachment 153352 [details] mcpp-manual.html.patch
Created attachment 153353 [details] mcpp.spec
Please provide a new _full_ srpm so that everyone can check your new srpm easily...
Created attachment 153354 [details] mcpp-2.6.3-3.src.rpm Hello Tasaka-san, Thank you very much for the thorough and kind review! I have rewritten the spec file and created a patch file. As for %check, current mcpp of compiler-independent-build has no automatic testing routine. Though mcpp has a series of automatic testing testcases, it is for GCC-specific-build of mcpp. I want to write a testing routine for mcpp of compiler-independent-build too, in the future version.
For -3: * Directory ownership - %{_datadir}/doc/%{name}-%{version} is not owned by any package and this package should own the directory. Well, then: ------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE: Before being sponsored: This package will be accepted with another few work. But before I accept this package, someone (I am a candidate) must sponsor you. Once you are sponsored, you have the right to review other submitters' review requests and approve the packages formally. For this reason, the person who want to be sponsored (like you) are required to "show that you have an understanding of the process and of the packaging guidelines" as is described on : http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/HowToGetSponsored Usually there are two ways to show this. A. submit other review requests with enough quality. B. Do a "pre-review" of other person's review request (at the time you are not sponsored, you cannot do a formal review) When you have submitted a new review request or have pre-reviewed other person's review request, please write the bug number on this bug report so that I can check your comments or review request. Fedora Extras package review requests which are waiting for someone to review can be checked on: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?cmdtype=runnamed&namedcmd=mtasaka-review-noone NOTE: FE-NEW blockers are now not complete. Review guidelines are described mainly on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets ------------------------------------------------------------
Created attachment 153418 [details] mcpp.spec
Created attachment 153419 [details] mcpp-2.6.3-3.src.rpm I have rewritten again the spec file in order to avoid duplication in %file, and changed the installation of the documents.
Well, * release number http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/FrequentlyMadeMistakes ---------------------------------------------- Increase the "Release" tag every time you upload a new package to avoid confusion. The reviewer and other interested parties probably still have older versions of your SRPM lying around to check what has changed between the old and new packages; those get confused when the revision didn't change. ---------------------------------------------- So please bump release number. Well, then as I said on comment 6, would you do a pre-review of other person's review request or submit a new review request of other software? (usually people choose former)
Created attachment 153424 [details] mcpp-2.6.3-4.i386.rpm
Created attachment 153425 [details] mcpp-2.6.3-4.src.rpm
Created attachment 153427 [details] mcpp.spec Increased the release number. I have mis-uploaded a binary rpm, sorry. As for pre-review or other review request, please give me a few days of time.
Updated to 2.6.3-5. to apply a new patch for mcpp. mcpp.spec: http://sourceforge.net/project/downloading.php?groupname=mcpp&filename=mcpp-2.6.3-5.spec mcpp-2.6.3-5.src.rpm: http://sourceforge.net/project/downloading.php?groupname=mcpp&filename=mcpp-2.6.3-5.src.rpm
ping?
Sorry for my long absence. I am now working to update mcpp from V.2.6.3 to V.2.6.4 which is a bug-fixed version of V.2. 6.3. I will select some packages and write pre-reviews in two or three days.
I have just written "pre-review" on the following two new packages. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239154 referencer: a Gnome application to organise documents or references https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=238248 ddccontrol: control monitor parameters,like brightness and contrast Writing review is a hard task than I expected!
Well, * mcpp packaging/performance is okay * For pre-reviewing: - for referencer, actually Deji Akingunola is a good packager and the spec file seems no problem at a glance (I didn't check in detail) - for ddccontrol, according to your comment the spec file seems to have many problem. I guess more problem may be found.... (for this package, I have not seen the spec file yet) (In reply to comment #16) > Writing review is a hard task than I expected! Perhaps. While I have reviewed about 140 packages and have submitted about 40 review requests, reviewing srpm was very difficult for me first. Okay!! ------------------------------------------------------ This package (mcpp) is APPROVED by me ------------------------------------------------------ Please follow: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join from "Get a Fedora Account". I will receive a mail which notices that you need a sponsor and then I will sponsor you. NOTE: devel repository is currently under the way of the merge of Core and Extras and you may meet some trouble. If you have some trouble, please let me know.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: mcpp Short Description: Alternative C/C++ preprocessor Owners: kmatsui@t3.rim.or.jp Branches: FC-6 InitialCC:
(Removing NEEDSPONSOR. I am sponsoring Matsui-san) Please close this as NEXTRELEASE when rebuild on devel and FC-6 is done.
Hello Tasaka-san, Thank you for sponsoring me! On cvs, koji has successfully built the package in "devel" branch. But, plague-client fails in "FC-6" branch for some reason, the server says "Insufficient privilege". (??)
(In reply to comment #20) > Hello Tasaka-san, > > Thank you for sponsoring me! > > On cvs, koji has successfully built the package in "devel" branch. But, > plague-client fails in "FC-6" branch for some reason, the server says > "Insufficient privilege". (??) Well, first would you update common/ and mcpp/ again? If you still fail to send a queue for plague, please try to wait another one hour. If you still fails, please let me know.
The plague server has finally built mcpp package! There were some troubles in building this package on the servers of Fedora-project. 1. The plague server did not allow to enque building of this package for some reason, saying "Insufficient privileges". 2. I sent an e-mail to rel-eng@fedoraproject.org and requested tagging 'f7-final' to this package. The e-mail was, however, returned from the redhat mail server on error for some reason, saying "User unknown". 3. I tried to subscribe fedora-maintainers ML. The ML, however, did not respond to me for some reason. Then, my sponsor Mamoru Tasaka contacted to one of the Fedora administrators, and all the troubles above have been dissolved. Now, I close this bugzilla changing the "resolution" to NEXTRELEASE. Many thanks to Mamoru Tasaka!