Bug 608066 - Review request: ldc - a compiler for the D programming language
Summary: Review request: ldc - a compiler for the D programming language
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: 13
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Casey Dahlin
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2010-06-25 15:05 UTC by MERCIER Jonathan
Modified: 2014-06-18 08:47 UTC (History)
9 users (show)

Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2010-08-05 09:39:38 UTC
cdahlin: fedora-review+
kevin: fedora-cvs+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description MERCIER Jonathan 2010-06-25 15:05:51 UTC
Spec url:

src.rpm url:

$ rpmlint -i SPECS/ldc.spec 
SPECS/ldc.spec:66: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/.empty
A library path is hardcoded to one of the following paths: /lib, /usr/lib. It
should be replaced by something like /%{_lib} or %{_libdir}.

SPECS/ldc.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: ldc-20100706hg1653.tar.xz
The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL.

0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.

$ rpmlint -i SRPMS/ldc-0.9.2-1.20100706hg1653.fc13.src.rpm => wrong misspeling warning

$ rpmlint RPMS/x86_64/ldc-* ==> wrong misspeling warning and :
ldc.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ldc
ldc.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ldmd

Comment 1 Casey Dahlin 2010-06-25 18:08:00 UTC
You should fix the error and warning. Neither are hard.

For the error just replace %{_prefix}/lib with %{_libdir}. Unless that doesn't work because the program places the file in lib regardless? Perhaps there's a config option that will help that.

The warning is simple. You should specify the Source0 as a download link for the tarball, not just its name.

Comment 2 MERCIER Jonathan 2010-06-25 18:49:06 UTC
the warning about %{_prefix} can not be remove because %{_libdir} = /usr/lib | /usr/lib64 or here is always /usr/lib
and this warning is for:
rm %{buildroot}%{_prefix}/lib/.empty

i remove an empty file i put any file in %{_prefix}/lib

Anf or Source i use upstream and in comment they are all information

Comment 3 MERCIER Jonathan 2010-06-25 18:51:26 UTC
link to guideline for name: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#PreReleasePackages

Comment 4 MERCIER Jonathan 2010-06-25 23:10:40 UTC
i have update spec file, all is put here: http://bioinfornatics.fedorapeople.org/

this empty file is removed because it's never used. "lib" is explicitely used instead of %_libdir because it's always used (not arch dependant).

As I'm using a mercurial repo for the source, I can' t provide a download link, but the tarball creation process is explained in spec comments

Comment 5 Casey Dahlin 2010-06-28 18:40:39 UTC
Upstream doesn't release source tarballs I see. That's extremely weird, and you should strongly pressure them to publish tars of the source alongside their binaries. That said, its ok to do it this way for now.

Give me a little more time to check the rest of the guidelines.

Comment 6 MERCIER Jonathan 2010-06-28 19:54:07 UTC
No problem :)
here review guideline: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines

Comment 7 Casey Dahlin 2010-07-02 19:21:24 UTC
I'd update your comment about how to build the tarball to explain /why/ that exercise must be gone through and what the upstream situation is. Beyond that I'd say this is set. Do you need a sponsor?

Comment 8 MERCIER Jonathan 2010-07-02 19:30:27 UTC
i need a review :)
(is not my first package)

Comment 9 Rakesh Pandit 2010-07-05 11:14:34 UTC
@Casey Dahlin

Hi, it seems you are not sponsor, so you cannot approve this package. But you can unofficial review which I would count this to be, even though this review request is messed up.

Undone fedora-review tag and updating summary. Also added FE-NEEDSPONSOR to blocker list.

Comment 10 Mohamed El Morabity 2010-07-05 11:28:31 UTC
Jonathan is already sponsored, as he said...

Comment 11 Rakesh Pandit 2010-07-05 13:10:22 UTC
@Casey Dahlin

Ok, my bad, as Jonathan is already sponsored - in case you consider this as approved mark the flag.

Don't forget to change status as well.

Comment 12 Casey Dahlin 2010-07-06 18:39:18 UTC
I don't see anything in the review process about a status change, though I do see I need to actually assign it to myself.

Comment 13 Rakesh Pandit 2010-07-07 04:29:58 UTC
(In reply to comment #8)
> i need a review :)
> (is not my first package)    

You can request for cvs and import.


Actually "I need a review" comment even after approval and wrong summary message confused me. Moreover generally reviewers tend to paste a check list and "approved" message in comments (both of which are not mandatory but common practice) in review requests which was not present here.

Comment 14 MERCIER Jonathan 2010-07-07 05:48:08 UTC
same as said Rakesh Pandit : ideally is paste here all NEED and SHOULD statement here and add foreach a comment: ok, available or not sometime you need explain more.
statement here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines
Now if Casey Dahlin said 'i can request cvs' so ths review is finish

Comment 15 Casey Dahlin 2010-07-07 18:36:12 UTC
@Rakesh: I'll keep that in mind.

@Jonathan: Go ahead and make your CVS request.

Comment 16 MERCIER Jonathan 2010-07-08 01:16:32 UTC
New Package CVS Request
Package Name: xautomation
Short Description: It is a compiler for the D programming language
Owners: bioinfornatics
Branches: F-12 F-13

Comment 17 MERCIER Jonathan 2010-07-08 01:16:49 UTC
New Package CVS Request
Package Name: ldc
Short Description: It is a compiler for the D programming language
Owners: bioinfornatics
Branches: F-12 F-13

Comment 18 Kevin Fenzi 2010-07-09 18:19:47 UTC
CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py).

Comment 19 Susi Lehtola 2010-08-27 15:57:02 UTC
This is not NOTABUG. Closing as CURRENTRELEASE.

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