Spec URL: http://shakthimaan.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/csmith.spec SRPM URL: http://shakthimaan.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/csmith-2.1.0-1.src.rpm Description: Csmith is a tool that can generate random C programs that statically and dynamically conform to the C99 standard. It is useful for stress-testing compilers, static analyzers, and other tools that process C code
$ rpmlint SPECS/csmith.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint SRPMS/csmith-2.1.0-1.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint RPMS/x86_64/csmith-2.1.0-1.x86_64.rpm csmith.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/bin/compiler_test.in csmith.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary csmith csmith.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary launchn.pl csmith.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary compiler_test.pl csmith.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary test_csmith.pl csmith.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary compiler_test.in 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings. $ rpmlint RPMS/x86_64/csmith-devel-2.1.0-1.x86_64.rpm csmith-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation csmith-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/csmith-2.1.0/stdint_ia32.h csmith-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/csmith-2.1.0/stdint_avr.h csmith-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/csmith-2.1.0/stdint_msp430.h csmith-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/csmith-2.1.0/custom_limits.h csmith-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/csmith-2.1.0/stdint_ia64.h 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 1 warnings. I will inform upstream to fix the FSF address. Successful Koji builds for F15, F16 and F17: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3534326 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3534329 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3534330
An informal review as I'm not a sponsored packager yet: Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated ==== C/C++ ==== [x]: MUST Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [!]: MUST ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. /sbin/ldconfig not called in %post [x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: MUST Package does not contains kernel modules. [x]: MUST Package contains no static executables. [x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: MUST Package is not relocatable. [x]: MUST Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. ==== Generic ==== [x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. [x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Buildroot is correct (EPEL5 & Fedora < 10) %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root [!]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. Not sure if the headers from the runtime directory are an issue here? [x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: MUST Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).(EPEL6 & Fedora < 13) [?]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [-]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: MUST Package run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) and the beginning of %install. (EPEL5) [!]: MUST 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 %doc. [x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [-]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [!]: MUST Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. Should use %doc to install documentation [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [?]: MUST Package does not generates any conflict. [!]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. I don't think compiler_test.in belongs in /usr/bin [x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: MUST Package installs properly. [!]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. Require of base package should use %{?_isa} qualification [!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent. rpmlint csmith-2.1.0-1.x86_64.rpm ================================================================================ csmith.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/bin/compiler_test.in csmith.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary csmith csmith.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary launchn.pl csmith.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary compiler_test.pl csmith.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary test_csmith.pl csmith.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary compiler_test.in 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings. ================================================================================ rpmlint csmith-devel-2.1.0-1.x86_64.rpm ================================================================================ csmith-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation csmith-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/csmith-2.1.0/stdint_ia32.h csmith-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/csmith-2.1.0/stdint_avr.h csmith-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/csmith-2.1.0/stdint_msp430.h csmith-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/csmith-2.1.0/custom_limits.h csmith-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/csmith-2.1.0/stdint_ia64.h 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 1 warnings. ================================================================================ rpmlint csmith-2.1.0-1.src.rpm ================================================================================ 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. ================================================================================ rpmlint csmith-debuginfo-2.1.0-1.x86_64.rpm ================================================================================ 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. ================================================================================ [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. /home/thh/756321/csmith-2.1.0.tar.gz : MD5SUM this package : 3170ce73f0347d82c1206cf145cb49c7 MD5SUM upstream package : 3170ce73f0347d82c1206cf145cb49c7 [x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [!]: SHOULD Dist tag is present. [x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [?]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SHOULD Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL. [-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [?]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define. Issues: [!]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. Not sure if the headers from the runtime directory are an issue here? [!]: MUST 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 %doc. [!]: MUST Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. Should use %doc to install documentation [!]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. I don't think compiler_test.in belongs in /usr/bin [!]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. Require of base package should use %{?_isa} qualification [!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent. rpmlint csmith-2.1.0-1.x86_64.rpm ================================================================================ csmith.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/bin/compiler_test.in csmith.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary csmith csmith.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary launchn.pl csmith.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary compiler_test.pl csmith.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary test_csmith.pl csmith.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary compiler_test.in 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings. ================================================================================ rpmlint csmith-devel-2.1.0-1.x86_64.rpm ================================================================================ csmith-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation csmith-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/csmith-2.1.0/stdint_ia32.h csmith-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/csmith-2.1.0/stdint_avr.h csmith-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/csmith-2.1.0/stdint_msp430.h csmith-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/csmith-2.1.0/custom_limits.h csmith-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/csmith-2.1.0/stdint_ia64.h 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 1 warnings. ================================================================================ rpmlint csmith-2.1.0-1.src.rpm ================================================================================ 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. ================================================================================ rpmlint csmith-debuginfo-2.1.0-1.x86_64.rpm ================================================================================ 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. ================================================================================
Oh, and some of the header files are GPL so license tag needs to reflect the BSD+GPL mix.
Bundled lib comment seconded, what's going on with those, are they actually being used?
Thanks for your review and comments. * Added patch to build for powerpc64 for dist-6E-epel. * Moved compiler_test.in to documentation directory as it is to be used by developers for their own testing. * Added GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ licenses. * Upstream has fixed the FSF address. Will reflect in the next release. * The shared libraries are useful for using csmith functions in runtime. What is the bundled library here? Please elaborate. SPEC: http://shakthimaan.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/csmith.spec SRPM: shakthimaan.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/csmith-2.1.0-2.src.rpm Successful Koji builds for F15, F16, F17 and dist-6E-epel: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3542463 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3542464 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3542459 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3542462 rpmlint output: $ rpmlint SPECS/csmith.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint SRPMS/csmith-2.1.0-2.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint RPMS/x86_64/csmith-2.1.0-2.x86_64.rpm csmith.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary csmith csmith.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary compiler_test.pl csmith.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary test_csmith.pl csmith.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary launchn.pl 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. $ rpmlint RPMS/x86_64/csmith-devel-2.1.0-2.x86_64.rpm csmith-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation csmith-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/csmith-2.1.0/stdint_ia32.h csmith-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/csmith-2.1.0/stdint_avr.h csmith-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/csmith-2.1.0/stdint_msp430.h csmith-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/csmith-2.1.0/custom_limits.h csmith-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/csmith-2.1.0/stdint_ia64.h 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 1 warnings.
Obviously there aren't any bundled libraries as such, but there are some header files which appear to have been copied from other libraries? One other thing I noticed, should test_csmith.pl be being installed as a binary? It seems it is intended for running self tests on csmith so maybe it should actually be run in %check?
Bundled headers are as much a problem as bundled solibs.
I checked with upstream regarding test_csmith.pl and it is not required for end users. I have removed it from the shipped package. SPEC: http://shakthimaan.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/csmith.spec SRPM: http://shakthimaan.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/csmith-2.1.0-3.src.rpm
I checked with upstream on using the header files. Their reply was: "Csmith doesn't just target compilers that run on Unix/Linux platforms. In the past we've wanted to test compilers for embedded platforms, for example, and as I recall some of those had inadequate stdint headers. Basically, copying the stdint headers freed us from an external dependency on those headers, which was good for at least some cases." ~ Eric Eide
That's fine for them, as long as the licensing allows them to redistribute the headers. But for Fedora, we must remove them and use the system versions.
Upstream's reply on the headers: "For the sake of everyone's sanity, I'd suggest that the Fedora-fied source package contain exactly what is in the output of `make dist'. If this isn't possible for some reason, maybe we can address the problem to make it possible. I'd rather not be in the situation of having the Fedora package be greatly different than what we distribute, which leads to questions about which distributions people are using when they report bugs, etc. We already have enough problems with that, asking people to specify git commit hashes." Since, this is a self-contained tool by itself, and they would like to keep track of the sources and bugs, and it is our best interest to stay close to upstream as possible, we will retain the headers as is.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries Can you document that these headers meet the criteria for an exception?
I have made a FPC request for this package to include the headers at: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/127
Since the inclusion have been refused by FPC, what is the status of this package review ? ( ie, can it be marked as NotReady until the problem is fixed ? )
It will either need to wait until the problem is fixed or use system headers.
Let's mark it as NotReady until a decision have been made.
Sorry for the delayed response. I have created a patch to remove the custom header files, so users can use the system header files. SPEC: http://shakthimaan.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/csmith.spec SRPM: shakthimaan.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/csmith-2.1.0-4.fc16.src.rpm Successful Koji builds for F16, F17, F18 respectively: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4120706 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4120709 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4120714 $ rpmlint csmith.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint csmith-2.1.0-4.fc16.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint csmith-2.1.0-4.fc16.x86_64.rpm csmith.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary csmith csmith.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary compiler_test.pl csmith.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary launchn.pl 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. $ rpmlint csmith-devel-2.1.0-4.fc16.x86_64.rpm csmith-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
I will take this review. The duplicate file warning is because %files contains this: %{_docdir}/%{name}/probabilities.txt %{_docdir}/%{name}/compiler_test.in %{_docdir}/csmith You probably need only the last of these. Also, COPYING needs to be included in the documentation. If you change "%configure" to "%configure --disable-static", that should both shorten the build time and make this line in %install unnecessary: find %{buildroot} -name *.a -exec rm -f {} \; Please see all of the boxes marked [!] below. Ignore the one in the "Perl" section, though; that is for perl modules, and this package just contains perl scripts. Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= [!]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/doc/csmith/compiler_test.in See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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. [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [!]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/doc/csmith/compiler_test.in [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [-]: Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [!]: 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 %doc. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (2 clause)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jamesjer/756321-csmith/licensecheck.txt [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: CheckResultdir [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. Perl: [!]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Reguires:. Note: Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval "`%{__perl} -V:version`"; echo $version)) missing? ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [!]: Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot: present but not needed [!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: %clean present but not required [-]: 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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [x]: 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. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [!]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Source0 (csmith-2.1.0.tar.gz) [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: 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. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [!]: 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). Rpmlint ------- Checking: csmith-2.1.0-3.i686.rpm csmith-debuginfo-2.1.0-3.i686.rpm csmith-devel-2.1.0-3.i686.rpm csmith-2.1.0-3.src.rpm csmith.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary csmith csmith.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary compiler_test.pl csmith.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary launchn.pl csmith-devel.i686: W: no-documentation csmith-devel.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/csmith-2.1.0/stdint_ia32.h csmith-devel.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/csmith-2.1.0/stdint_avr.h csmith-devel.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/csmith-2.1.0/stdint_msp430.h csmith-devel.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/csmith-2.1.0/custom_limits.h csmith-devel.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/csmith-2.1.0/stdint_ia64.h 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint csmith csmith-devel csmith-debuginfo csmith.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary csmith csmith.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary compiler_test.pl csmith.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary launchn.pl csmith-devel.i686: W: no-documentation csmith-devel.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/csmith-2.1.0/stdint_ia32.h csmith-devel.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/csmith-2.1.0/stdint_avr.h csmith-devel.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/csmith-2.1.0/stdint_msp430.h csmith-devel.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/csmith-2.1.0/custom_limits.h csmith-devel.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/csmith-2.1.0/stdint_ia64.h 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 4 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/jamesjer/756321-csmith/srpm/csmith.spec 2012-10-25 10:29:43.026566351 -0600 +++ /home/jamesjer/756321-csmith/srpm-unpacked/csmith.spec 2012-10-25 10:29:44.933582680 -0600 @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ Name: csmith Version: 2.1.0 -Release: 4%{?dist} +Release: 3 Summary: Tool to generate random C programs for compiler testing @@ -9,5 +9,4 @@ Source0: http://embed.cs.utah.edu/csmith/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz Patch0: csmith-2.1.0-fix-powerpc64-build.patch -Patch1: csmith-2.1.0-remove-custom-headers.patch BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root @@ -33,5 +32,4 @@ %setup -q %patch0 -p1 -b .ppc64 -%patch1 -p1 -b .fix %build @@ -45,5 +43,4 @@ find %{buildroot} -name *.la -exec rm -f {} \; find %{buildroot} -name test_csmith.pl -exec rm -f {} \; - mv %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/compiler_test.in %{buildroot}%{_docdir}/%{name} chmod -x %{buildroot}%{_docdir}/%{name}/compiler_test.in @@ -73,7 +70,4 @@ %changelog -* Sat Jun 02 2012 Shakthi Kannan <shakthimaan [AT] fedoraproject dot org> 2.1.0-4 -- Use system header files. - * Thu Dec 01 2011 Shakthi Kannan <shakthimaan [AT] fedoraproject dot org> 2.1.0-3 - Removed test_csmith.pl from the package. Requires -------- csmith-2.1.0-3.i686.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig /usr/bin/perl libc.so.6 libgcc_s.so.1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0) libm.so.6 libstdc++.so.6 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3) perl(File::stat) perl(Sys::CPU) perl(strict) perl(warnings) rtld(GNU_HASH) csmith-debuginfo-2.1.0-3.i686.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): csmith-devel-2.1.0-3.i686.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): csmith = 2.1.0-3 libcsmith.so.0 pkgconfig Provides -------- csmith-2.1.0-3.i686.rpm: csmith = 2.1.0-3 csmith(x86-32) = 2.1.0-3 libcsmith.so.0 csmith-debuginfo-2.1.0-3.i686.rpm: csmith-debuginfo = 2.1.0-3 csmith-debuginfo(x86-32) = 2.1.0-3 csmith-devel-2.1.0-3.i686.rpm: csmith-devel = 2.1.0-3 csmith-devel(x86-32) = 2.1.0-3 MD5-sum check ------------- http://embed.cs.utah.edu/csmith/csmith-2.1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d5f626044dbe93bfadd867385dc03b111b91ead1e394793a4203dd7de4f50192 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d5f626044dbe93bfadd867385dc03b111b91ead1e394793a4203dd7de4f50192 Generated by fedora-review 0.3.0 (c78e275) last change: 2012-09-24 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 756321 -m fedora-rawhide-i386
Thanks for the review. The --disable-static doesn't have any effect, and hence have used the find syntax. I have made the other necessary changes. SPEC: http://shakthimaan.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/csmith.spec SRPM: http://shakthimaan.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/csmith-2.1.0-5.fc17.src.rpm
Hmmm, that results in the main csmith package creating both /usr/share/doc/csmith and /usr/share/doc/csmith-2.1.0. Can you get all of the documentation files into one or the other? Also, the BuildRoot tag in the spec file is unnecessary. I recommend deleting it. This MUST item has not been addressedd: [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. Everything else looks good.
All documentation have been moved to a single directory. Removed the BuildRoot tag in the .spec file, and have added a comment on multiple licenses. SPEC: http://shakthimaan.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/csmith.spec SRPM: http://shakthimaan.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/csmith-2.1.0-6.fc16.src.rpm
That looks like everything to me. This package is APPROVED.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: csmith Short Description: Tool to generate random C programs for compiler testing Owners: shakthimaan Branches: f16 f17 f18 f19
Git done (by process-git-requests).
csmith-2.1.0-6.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/csmith-2.1.0-6.fc17
csmith-2.1.0-6.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/csmith-2.1.0-6.fc16
csmith-2.1.0-6.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/csmith-2.1.0-6.fc18
csmith-2.1.0-6.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository.
csmith-2.1.0-6.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.
csmith-2.1.0-6.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.
csmith-2.1.0-6.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.