[Bug 907007] Review Request: unittest++.spec - Lightweight unit testing framework for C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=907007 --- Comment #14 from Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com --- If there won't be any response from the submitter until June 9th, I'll change status to CLOSED - NOTABUG -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=CiYphOGcN2a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 907007] Review Request: unittest++.spec - Lightweight unit testing framework for C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=907007 Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard||Stalled Submitter -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=2fAzzaPKxBa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 907007] Review Request: unittest++.spec - Lightweight unit testing framework for C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=907007 Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bjoern.es...@gmail.com --- Comment #13 from Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com --- Are you still interested in getting this reviewed? Consider applying Michaels suggestions/proposals and provide an updated spec/srpm then, please. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=1a1S00bDrsa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 907007] Review Request: unittest++.spec - Lightweight unit testing framework for C++
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=907007
Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mschwe...@gmail.com
--- Comment #12 from Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com ---
I do not expect any Fedora-shipped program to link to this library,
as it is used for unit testing only, so mandating a soname seems overkill
Then building a shared lib and two packages seems overkill, too. Why don't you
simply build just the static lib as upstream does it? Package unittest++-devel
with a virtual unittest++-static to meet the guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries_2
Or build the shared lib but move _all_ files into a single unittest++-devel
package together with the headers and the ldconfig calls. Instead, you treat
the shared lib like a full system run-time lib in its separate run-time
package. What is the benefit, if you expect no Fedora package to depend on the
shared lib?
CPPFLAGS='%{optflags}' make %{?_smp_mflags}
The source doesn't use $CPPFLAGS but $CXXFLAGS - and your patch adds $CFLAGS.
Due to that it doesn't adhere to the %optflags guidelines either:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags
To see what is being built with, you would need to make the build output less
silent and e.g. patch the command invocations in the Makefile.
%package devel
Summary:Object files for development using unittest-cpp
Decide on either name. Either unittest++ (like the project name) or
unittest-cpp (like the upstream source zip).
* Run rpmlint -i on the src.rpm and all built rpms. Some of the reported
warnings/errors may be dubious (false positives), however. Be aware of that.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Yp78cS0I9ba=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 907007] Review Request: unittest++.spec - Lightweight unit testing framework for C++
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=907007 François Cami f...@fcami.net changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard|NotReady| --- Comment #11 from François Cami f...@fcami.net --- As Luke is not a packager yet, his review is non binding. Lifting NotReady keyword. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=CvUnryOYYba=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 907007] Review Request: unittest++.spec - Lightweight unit testing framework for C++
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=907007 --- Comment #9 from François Cami f...@fcami.net --- Thank you Luke! The following item is not needed because RPM correctly detects the dependency on pkgconfig. The following is in the output of rpmbuild -ba: Requires: /usr/bin/pkg-config [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. - Need to add pkg-config I'll fix the remaining issues shortly. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=8zl5EznFEwa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 907007] Review Request: unittest++.spec - Lightweight unit testing framework for C++
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=907007 --- Comment #10 from François Cami f...@fcami.net --- I've fixed the following: [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define. Spec URL: http://fcami.fedorapeople.org/srpms/unittest++.spec SRPM URL: http://fcami.fedorapeople.org/srpms/unittest++-1.4-6.fc18.src.rpm Regarding the following issue: [-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Upstream builds as static only, and while I added the possibility to build a shared library, I would rather have upstream maintain the soname field if it existed. More importantly, I do not expect any Fedora-shipped program to link to this library, as it is used for unit testing only, so mandating a soname seems overkill. Luke, have you got any insight on this? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=k9m5yUO5d2a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 907007] Review Request: unittest++.spec - Lightweight unit testing framework for C++
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=907007
--- Comment #8 from Luke Benstead kaz...@gmail.com ---
Just a few things to tweak:
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: 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. - Upstream uses static libs
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. - Need to add
pkg-config
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Unknown or generated. 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/packager/review/907007-unittest++/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: 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]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. - Need to add pkg-config
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 4 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: 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]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[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
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[!]: Spec use %global instead of %define.
Note: %define archivename unittest-cpp
[x]: 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).
[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.
[-]: Scriptlets must be sane, if 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
[Bug 907007] Review Request: unittest++.spec - Lightweight unit testing framework for C++
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=907007
--- Comment #4 from Luke Benstead kaz...@gmail.com ---
One final issue, you need to change the final line of unittest++.pc from:
Cflags: -I${includedir}/unittest-cpp
to
Cflags: -I${includedir}/unittest++
But once that's done, everything looks perfect to me!
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=wCaL5JO3M4a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 907007] Review Request: unittest++.spec - Lightweight unit testing framework for C++
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=907007 --- Comment #5 from François Cami f...@fcami.net --- Spec URL: http://fcami.fedorapeople.org/srpms/unittest++.spec SRPM URL: http://fcami.fedorapeople.org/srpms/unittest++-1.4-4.fc18.src.rpm Mock build (f18/x86_64): http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5096626 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=OISiUspouRa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 907007] Review Request: unittest++.spec - Lightweight unit testing framework for C++
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=907007 --- Comment #6 from François Cami f...@fcami.net --- Thank you Luke, I believe the SRPM posted as comment 5 fixes all your concerns. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=UAyZPGRoNOa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 907007] Review Request: unittest++.spec - Lightweight unit testing framework for C++
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=907007 --- Comment #7 from François Cami f...@fcami.net --- One small fix later... Spec URL: http://fcami.fedorapeople.org/srpms/unittest++.spec SRPM URL: http://fcami.fedorapeople.org/srpms/unittest++-1.4-5.fc18.src.rpm Mock build (f18/x86_64): http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5096846 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=op3HLq9b4qa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 907007] Review Request: unittest++.spec - Lightweight unit testing framework for C++
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=907007 François Cami f...@fcami.net changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |unittest-cpp - Lightweight |unittest++.spec - |unit testing framework for |Lightweight unit testing |C++ |framework for C++ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ahAl2B5Evca=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
