Spec URL: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org/packages/Clean/Clean.spec SRPM URL: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org/packages/Clean/Clean-2.4-1.src.rpm Description: The Clean language compiler. Released by the MBSD of the Radboud University Nijmegen. Fedora Account System Username: puiterwijk Succesfull Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4180760 This is my first package, and I am seeking someone who wants to sponsor me. To clarify on the rpmlint messages: The .c and .h files may be required during compilation of a program using the Clean libraries. Also the empty files are provided by upstream, and should not be removed.
I'll take it for nostalgic reasons :)
Created attachment 594249 [details] test.icl This is an example Clean Program which calculates ((1+2)*3)^4 by using Peano arithmatic. This can be used to verify that the Clean compiler works accurately. You can put this in a directory, and execute the command "clm test" to generate the program (a.out). Afterwards, you can run it by using ./a.out, and verify that the outcome is indeed 6561.
I have made koji builds on f16 and rawhide to verify that it builds correctly on each of them. f16: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4182605 rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4190058
Why is the package name capitalised? I would strongly prefer "clean" for the package name, even if it still uses "Clean" in the directory name used for install. The call to ./remove_tmp_files_linux makes me a little nervous. Also the errors for removing non-existing .o's is not neccessary, perhaps use rm -rf or skip it. The build directory ends up not being versioned. it should be. I also see a lot of compiling happening on package install, by make and clm being run in %post. That is forbidden and MUST be done in the build, and not the install phase. Why dod you do this? Did they not support a DESTDIR equivalent? I think you might need to exclude the ppc platform, as you don't have a precompiler setup for that? Remove the Buildrequires for gcc and make It should use CFLAGS?= instead of CFLAGS= so it does not override rpmbuild's options. I used sed's line in the spec file for that, though upstream should really fix that. eg: sed -i "s/CFLAGS=/CFLAGS?=/g" ./src/tools/clm/Makefile.linux64 The make commands in the spec file are not specifying the proper flags, it should be something like: make %{?_smp_mflags} CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS " CC=gcc When doing that, it fails to build. I think it might be more link flags variable overrides causing failure. %install no longer needs an rm -rf at the start Why does Clean/doc not get shipped in %doc ? There are lot of "cd" commands in the spec file. Can you phase those out and merge those in the cp/mv/rm lines directly? (avoids any potential subshell issues where cwd is forgotten) you don't need to specify %attr(755, root, root) as that's the default. Some of the warnings below are due to the problems listed above. rpmlint: Clean.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Clean Clean.x86_64: W: executable-stack /usr/bin/htoclean Clean.x86_64: W: executable-stack /usr/lib64/Clean/exe/linker Clean.x86_64: W: executable-stack /usr/lib64/Clean/exe/cocl Clean.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/Clean/ArgEnv/ArgEnvC.c Clean.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/Clean/Directory/Clean System Files/cDirectory.c Clean.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/Clean/StdEnv/_startupTrace.dcl Clean.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/Clean/StdEnv/_startup.dcl Clean.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/Clean/StdEnv/_system.dcl Clean.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/Clean/StdEnv/_startupProfile.dcl Clean.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/Clean/TCPIP/Clean System Files/cTCP_121.h Clean.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/Clean/TCPIP/Clean System Files/cTCP_121.c Clean.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/Clean/Directory/Clean System Files/Clean.h Clean-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 9 warnings. Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated ==== C/C++ ==== [!]: MUST Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Clean-2.4-1.i686.rpm : /usr/lib/Clean/Directory/Clean System Files/Clean.h Clean-2.4-1.i686.rpm : /usr/lib/Clean/TCPIP/Clean System Files/cTCP_121.h [x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: MUST Package contains no static executables. [ ]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: MUST Package is not relocatable. ==== 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 primary architecture. [!]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. ( I added a few sed commands in the spec file to fix some of these) [!]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: These BR are not needed: gcc make [x]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine [x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required [x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5 [x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [!]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. Note: I think it needs to exclude ppc? [x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly. [!]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/Clean/exe/cg [x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5 [ ]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [!]: 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. Note: it should package CleanLicenseConditions.txt in %doc [x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [!]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: missing, should have: %dir %{_libdir}/Clean [x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [!]: MUST Package installs properly. Install compiles things - cannot be done [!]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. gcc and make are always implied, do not specify these [!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent. Note: it is not, see above. Also: Clean-debuginfo.i686: E: empty-debuginfo-package 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. Looks like binaries might have been stripped by the make process? [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. /home/paul/834069/clean2.4_boot.tar.gz : MD5SUM this package : 558dc5c85322617ea7138a9a6838c89f MD5SUM upstream package : 558dc5c85322617ea7138a9a6838c89f /home/paul/834069/clean2.4_64_boot.tar.gz : MD5SUM this package : b715e981dc1ef6702c2f670ad888f9af MD5SUM upstream package : b715e981dc1ef6702c2f670ad888f9af [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. [!]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. Note: broken [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. Note: add %{?dist} after the Release: number. [ ]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [ ]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [ ]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. [x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [!]: SHOULD Scriptlets must be sane, if used. Note: %post is a problem. [!]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Source0: http://clean.cs.ru.nl/download/Clean24/linux/clean2.4_boot.tar.gz (clean2.4_boot.tar.gz) Source1: http://clean.cs.ru.nl/download/Clean24/linux/clean2.4_64_boot.tar.gz (clean2.4_64_boot.tar.gz) Source2: htoclean.1 (htoclean.1) Patch0: Clean.32bit.patch (Clean.32bit.patch) Patch1: Clean.clmman.patch (Clean.clmman.patch) [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. Note: ppc should probably be excluded? [ ]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define. Issues: [!]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: These BR are not needed: gcc make See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 [!]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/Clean/exe/cg See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles [!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5 See: None [!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent. rpmlint Clean-2.4-1.i686.rpm Clean.i686: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Clean Clean.i686: W: executable-stack /usr/lib/Clean/exe/cocl Clean.i686: W: executable-stack /usr/lib/Clean/exe/linker Clean.i686: W: executable-stack /usr/bin/htoclean Clean.i686: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/Clean/TCPIP/Clean System Files/cTCP_121.h Clean.i686: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/Clean/Directory/Clean System Files/Clean.h Clean.i686: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/Clean/Directory/Clean System Files/cDirectory.c Clean.i686: E: zero-length /usr/lib/Clean/StdEnv/_system.dcl Clean.i686: E: zero-length /usr/lib/Clean/StdEnv/_startupProfile.dcl Clean.i686: E: zero-length /usr/lib/Clean/StdEnv/_startup.dcl Clean.i686: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/Clean/TCPIP/Clean System Files/cTCP_121.c Clean.i686: E: zero-length /usr/lib/Clean/StdEnv/_startupTrace.dcl Clean.i686: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/Clean/ArgEnv/ArgEnvC.c 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 9 warnings. rpmlint Clean-debuginfo-2.4-1.i686.rpm Clean-debuginfo.i686: E: empty-debuginfo-package 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint Clean-2.4-1.src.rpm Clean.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Clean Clean.src: W: %ifarch-applied-patch Patch0: Clean.32bit.patch 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint [!]: MUST Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Clean-2.4-1.i686.rpm : /usr/lib/Clean/Directory/Clean System Files/Clean.h Clean-2.4-1.i686.rpm : /usr/lib/Clean/TCPIP/Clean System Files/cTCP_121.h See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages Generated by fedora-review 0.1.3
Thanks for reviewing. I have read your comments, and fixed as many as possible. New SPEC: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org/packages/Clean/Clean-2.spec New SRPMS: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org/packages/Clean/Clean-2.4-2.fc17.src.rpm New Koji link: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4203212 First, for the naming, I have decided to stay with Clean, because that is the name upstream also uses (even in the middle of a sentence, they write it with capital C: "Learn more about the Clean language by ..."). And according to the Naming Guidelines, you should keep the case as specified by upstream. The remove_tmp_files_linux script is only deleting a few object files which were built in previous passes, it does not do anything considered dangerous. I have modified it so that it will use rm -f, to evade the warnings. I have versioned the build directory. Compilation during installation has been fixed. This was needed because clm compiles StdEnv for that specific machine. I have set ExclusiveArch, since this version is only available on x86 and x86_64. The BuildRequire's have been removed. I have changed CFLAGS= into CFLAGS+= and added the nessecary arguments to make. rm -rf in %install has been removed. Clean/doc now gets packaged into defaultdocdir/Clean The attributes actually are needed, because the default of the Clean compiler is 711. The rpmlint messages are explained in the SPEC file now # Known errors of RPMLINT: # Name-repeated-in-summary: This is because the name of the language is the same as that of the compiler # Executable-stack: the Clean runtime system is built to use this, so this cannot be changed without major overhauling of the Clean compiler itself # Empty files (_startup.dcl, _startupTrace.dcl, _startupProfile.dcl, _system.dcl, _library.dcl): these must be available while running the compiler # Wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding: this has been requested upstream # %ifarch-applied-patch: because the archives for 32-bit and 64-bit differ in more then the bootstrapped files, this has to be done (some files have the same name, but have different contents) I have removed the debuginfo package option, because the Clean linker strips all debug info, without any option to re-enable it. I have added the %{?dist} tag. I have used %{name} in the patchX names, for sourceX this is not possible, because the archive names are with small letters.
Note that when writing about software people often capitalize it. I do the same for Openswan for example. But when people install packages, they most often assume or look for lovercased package names, and using a capital is just making it harder for people to find the package. Some minor things: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib64/Clean warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/doc/Clean Related: You should not need to use the %{_defaultdocdir}. By adding things using %doc it should appear at the proper place. It will then also properly version the doc dir as /usr/share/doc/Clean-2.4-2/ So just do: %doc doc/* Clean.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/clm Guess that's unavoidable now with the debuginfo not really working for clean package. So, OK. Clean.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/Clean/CleanLangRep/CleanRep.2.2.css Can you convert that using tr or dos2unix? # Patch clm to use the /bin directory Can you patch it for /usr/bin since /bin is a symlink to /usr/bin/ With these, I'll approve the package, though I still have a strong preference for a package name without a capital C.
Thanks for your feedback. New SPEC: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org/packages/Clean/clean-3.spec New SRPM: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org/packages/Clean/clean-2.4-3.fc17.src.rpm New Koji link: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4204007 t I have renamed the package to clean, with lowercase c, thanks for clearing that up. I have removed the %dir lines, because according to the RPM manual (at http://www.rpm.org/max-rpm/s1-rpm-inside-files-list-directives.html), the RPM should already claim the directory without it, and %dir indicates you only want the directory. The %doc lines have been fixed. The wrong-file-end-of-line encoding has been converted. I was patching clm to use %{_libdir}, the "patch to use /bin" was only a commentary issue, but has been fixed.
Package is APPROVED. Now let's get you a sponsor All listed issues above addressed. Mock builds. Compiling and running a small test program works. rpmlint warnings understood and ok: clean.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Clean clean.src:66: W: macro-in-comment %{_libdir} clean.src: W: %ifarch-applied-patch Patch0: %{name}.makefiles.patch clean.src: W: %ifarch-applied-patch Patch1: %{name}.32bit.patch clean.src: W: %ifarch-applied-patch Patch2: %{name}.64bit.patch clean.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Clean clean.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/clm clean.x86_64: W: executable-stack /usr/bin/htoclean clean.x86_64: W: executable-stack /usr/lib64/Clean/exe/linker clean.x86_64: W: executable-stack /usr/lib64/Clean/exe/cocl clean.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/Clean/StdEnv/_startup.dcl clean.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/Clean/StdEnv/_startupTrace.dcl clean.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/Clean/StdEnv/_system.dcl clean.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/Clean/StdEnv/_startupProfile.dcl clean.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/Clean/StdEnv/_library.dcl 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 10 warnings. Minor: Probably remove or fixup /usr/share/doc/clean-2.4/Examples/make.bat for Linux when you make the next release.
Thank you! Should I (according to the "How to get sponsored into the packager group" wiki page) try to contact current sponsors (by IRC) or review, or do you have contacts for that purpose?
I have updated the package as per your suggestion, the doc/Examples/make.bat is removed. I also strip bin/clm, as a debuginfo package is not usefull, but disabling that also disables the stripping. New SPEC: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org/packages/Clean/clean-4.spec New SRPM: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org/packages/Clean/clean-2.4-4.fc17.src.rpm New Koji link: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4206767
(In reply to comment #10) > I have updated the package as per your suggestion, the doc/Examples/make.bat > is removed. > I also strip bin/clm, as a debuginfo package is not usefull, but disabling > that also disables the stripping. I think, this all actually is related to (MUSTFIX) building not acknowledging RPM_OPT_FLAGS and it playing dirty gameswith CFLAGS: ... make[1]: Entering directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/clean/src/CodeGenerator' gcc -DI486 -DGNU_C -DLINUX -DLINUX_ELF -DG_AI64 -O -fomit-frame-pointer -c -o cg.o cg.c ...
Thanks for letting me know. That has been fixed now. New SPEC: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org/packages/Clean/clean-5.spec New SRPM: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org/packages/Clean/clean-2.4-5.fc17.src.rpm New Koji link: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4207998
Patrick: until the new sponsor method takes effect, I can't help you get a sponsor. You can try asking on #fedora-devel or on the mailing list.
To which "new sponsor method" do you refer? We already made a bunch of changes to the process a few weeks ago and to my knowledge there are no further changes proposed.
I will ask on #fedora-devel for someone who would want to sponsor me. I have found out that there was an issue in the previous build which would make it impossible to import StdEnv on the x86_64 build. (Standard Environment, which is a library included in (almost) all Clean applications). This has been fixed in this version. New SPEC: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org/packages/Clean/clean-6.spec New SRPM: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org/packages/Clean/clean-2.4-6.fc17.src.rpm New Koji link: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4208166
I have improved the package(s) a bit more. The changes are: - Packaging less pre-compiled files (only the really needed pre-compiled files like _startup* and _system are still packaged) - cg, cocl and linker moved to libexec as per HFS - Folder names made consistent (Clean -> clean) - Subpackages for optional modules added New SPEC: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org/packages/Clean/clean-7.spec New SRPM: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org/packages/Clean/clean-2.4-7.fc17.src.rpm New Koji link: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4208876
I have improved the package again after testing my package for some time. Most of the modified things (all in the changelog) are small things that are just clearing some things up. Some notable changes include: - Removed Dynamics, as this is not supported on Linux (asked upstream) - Patched clm to include all sub-directories of PATHLISTRT (%{_libdir}/%{name} in this package) so you don't have to add -I for every module you want to import if you installed it in a sub-directory of PATHLISTRT. New SPEC: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org/packages/Clean/clean-8.spec New SRPM: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org/packages/Clean/clean-2.4-8.fc17.src.rpm New Koji link: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4223685
checke the 2.4-8 build. APPROVED Though switch $RPM_OPT_FLAGS for %{optflags} for consistency
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: clean Short Description: The Clean language compiler Owners: puiterwijk pwouters Branches: f16 f17 InitialCC:
I have fixed your comments. New SPEC: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org/packages/Clean/clean-9.spec New SRPM: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org/packages/Clean/clean-2.4-9.fc17.src.rpm New Koji link: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4223874
Git done (by process-git-requests).
clean-2.4-9.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/clean-2.4-9.fc17
clean-2.4-9.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/clean-2.4-9.fc16
clean-2.4-9.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 testing repository.
clean-2.4-9.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.
clean-2.4-9.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: clean New Branches: el5 el6 Owners: puiterwijk After reading more about EPEL (as suggested in the Join the package collection maintainers wiki page), I am now requesting branches for it.
clean-2.4-11.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/clean-2.4-11.el5
clean-2.4-11.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/clean-2.4-11.el6
clean-2.4-11.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.
clean-2.4-11.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository.