https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884
--- Comment #32 from Brandon Nielsen <niels...@jetfuse.net> --- Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/nielsenb/msp430-development-tools/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01577708-msp430-elf-toolchain/msp430-elf-toolchain.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/nielsenb/msp430-development-tools/srpm-builds/01577708/msp430-elf-toolchain-9.2.0.0-3.fc32.src.rpm (In reply to Andy Mender from comment #30) > After some fiddling, I managed to run `fedora-review` from the COPR build, > thanks! > > > BuildRequires: gmp-devel > > BuildRequires: libmpc-devel > > %if 0%{?fedora} >= 32 > > BuildRequires: pkgconfig(mpfr) > > %else > > BuildRequires: mpfr-devel > > %endif > > BuildRequires: pkgconfig(ncurses) > > BuildRequires: sed > > BuildRequires: texinfo > > BuildRequires: pkgconfig(zlib) > > I would check whether it's possible to replace the "*-devel" lines with > "pkgconfig(foo)" like you did in the other cases. > I don't see a pkgconfig provided by gmp-devel or libmpc-devel. > > cd binutils > > %make_install > > cd - > > > cd gcc > > PATH=$PWD/../bin:$PATH > > %make_install > > # Reset the path > > PATH=%{base_path} > > cd - > > > cd gdb > > %make_install > > cd - > > Add the "-p" flag to %make_install to preserve timestamps. > Done. > Quite a bit of clean-up needs to be done still, sorry :(. There is a load of > header files, libtools and static objects which shouldn't be there. The full > review matrix is below (I included the full review + rpmlint in attached > file): > I got rid of the remaining libtool archive. I'm afraid I don't understand what header files or static objects shouldn't be there. This is a compiler, those are required for it to function. > Package Review > ============== > > Legend: > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > [ ] = Manual review needed > > > Issues: > ======= > - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. > **Lots of leftover header files in subdirs of /usr/msp430-elf** > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- > guidelines/#_devel_packages It's a compiler, the headers are necessary as far as I'm aware. > - Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) > Note: msp430-elf-gcc : > /usr/msp430-elf/libexec/gcc/msp430-elf/9.2.0/liblto_plugin.la > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- > guidelines/#packaging-static-libraries Fixed. > - Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT > Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_macros I'm not actually using the $RPM_BUILD_ROOT macro, I'm modifying a script that uses the $RPM_BUILD_ROOT environment variable. I could switch to using $RPM_BUILD_ROOT elsewhere in the spec, but then I'm mixing macro formats. > - 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. > Note: License file copying.c is not marked as %license > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- > guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text License line was definitely messed up, I fixed it the best I could matching the gcc, binutils, and gdb packages. I also copied how they handled license files. I don't understand the comment about copying.c, I'm assuming it's not supposed to be marked as a license file. > - Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if > present. > Note: Package has .a files: msp430-elf-gcc, msp430-elf-gcc-c++. Illegal > package name: msp430-elf-gcc, msp430-elf-gcc-c++. Does not provide > -static: msp430-elf-gcc, msp430-elf-gcc-c++. > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- > guidelines/#packaging-static-libraries Again, this is a compiler, as far as I know, those are necessary. > > > ===== MUST items ===== > > C/C++: > [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. > [?]: Package contains no static executables. > [!]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. > Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see > attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. I agree this is gross, but it's not in "regular" gcc's ld path, so I think it's okay? > [x]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. > [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a > BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. > [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. > > Generic: > [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least > one supported primary architecture. > Note: Using prebuilt packages > [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets > other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging > Guidelines. > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Cannot run licensecheck: Command 'licensecheck -r > /var/lib/mock/fedora- > rawhide-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/msp430-elf-toolchain' > returned non-zero exit status 2. > Review: Ran licensecheck manually. A lot of files are BSD licensed! > This should be included in the "License:" block as "GPL and BSD" Yeah, the license was definitely wrong. Again, fixed to the best of my ability. > [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. > Review: all main packages should include the license file. All packages do include a license file? Again, I've twiddled with exactly what's included in the above build. > [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. > Note: No known owner of /usr/msp430-elf/libexec/gcc/msp430-elf/9.2.0, > /usr/msp430-elf/lib/gcc/msp430-elf/9.2.0, /usr/msp430-elf/lib, > /usr/msp430-elf/libexec/gcc/msp430-elf, > /usr/msp430-elf/lib/gcc/msp430-elf, /usr/msp430-elf/libexec/gcc, > /usr/msp430-elf/msp430-elf/lib, /usr/msp430-elf/bin, > /usr/msp430-elf/lib/gcc, /usr/msp430-elf/msp430-elf, /usr/msp430-elf, > /usr/msp430-elf/libexec, /usr/msp430-elf/msp430-elf/include Fixed. > [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > Note: Directories without known owners: > /usr/msp430-elf/msp430-elf/lib/large/full-memory-range, > /usr/msp430-elf/libexec/gcc/msp430-elf, /usr/msp430-elf/libexec/gcc, > /usr/msp430-elf/msp430-elf/lib/large/exceptions, > /usr/msp430-elf/lib/gcc, /usr/msp430-elf, > /usr/msp430-elf/msp430-elf/lib/exceptions, > /usr/msp430-elf/msp430-elf/lib/large/full-memory-range/exceptions, > /usr/msp430-elf/msp430-elf/include, > /usr/msp430-elf/msp430-elf/lib/430/exceptions, > /usr/msp430-elf/libexec/gcc/msp430-elf/9.2.0, > /usr/msp430-elf/msp430-elf/lib/430, > /usr/msp430-elf/lib/gcc/msp430-elf/9.2.0, /usr/msp430-elf/lib, > /usr/msp430-elf/lib/gcc/msp430-elf, /usr/msp430-elf/bin, > /usr/msp430-elf/msp430-elf/lib, /usr/msp430-elf/msp430-elf/lib/large, > /usr/msp430-elf/msp430-elf, /usr/msp430-elf/libexec Fixed. > [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. > [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. > [!]: Changelog in prescribed format. > Macros in changelog are not allowed. I'm not actually using the macro, it's just a comment. Should I escape it somehow? Or just modify the comment. > [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. > [?]: 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. > [?]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. > [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. > [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size > (~1MB) or number of files. > Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files. > [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines > [x]: Package installs properly. > [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. > Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). > [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. > [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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local > > ===== SHOULD items ===== > > Generic: > [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. > [!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag > Note: Could not download Source0: http://software- > > dl.ti.com/msp430/msp430_public_sw/mcu/msp430/MSPGCC/9_2_0_0/export/msp430- > gcc-9.2.0.50-source- > full.tar.bz2 > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- > guidelines/SourceURL/ > NOt > [-]: 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). > [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. > Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in > msp430-elf-gcc , msp430-elf-gcc-c++ , msp430-elf-gdb , msp430-elf- > binutils > Review: it's a good idea to include this. I'm not sure I understand. I've added some missing requires (the C++ compiler now requires the C compiler, the C compiler now requires binutils), but if I add the "Requires: {name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}" requested, I just get packages that are uninstallable. Is there some documentation I can look at to see an example of what's being requested? > [?]: Package functions as described. > [x]: Latest version is packaged. > [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. > [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. > Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments > [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream > publishes signatures. > Note: gpgverify is not used. > [-]: 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. > [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed > files. Fixed. > [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. > Note: %define requiring justification: %define __os_install_post . > ./os_install_post > [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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file > [x]: SourceX is a working URL. > > ===== EXTRA items ===== > > Generic: > [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). > Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). > [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. > Note: No rpmlint messages. > [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package > is arched. > [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. > [Snip] -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
