[Bug 1208738] Review Request: vera++ - A tool for verification, analysis and transformation of C++ source code

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208738

Taylor Braun-Jones  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(taylor@braun-jone |needinfo- needinfo-
   |s.org)  |
   |needinfo?(taylor@braun-jone |
   |s.org)  |



-- 
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

[Bug 1208738] Review Request: vera++ - A tool for verification, analysis and transformation of C++ source code

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208738

Raphael Groner  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|CLOSED
 CC|projects...@smart.ms|
 Resolution|--- |NOTABUG
   Assignee|projects...@smart.ms|nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Flags|fedora-review+  |
Last Closed|2016-02-04 17:13:27 |2016-03-03 11:44:28



--- Comment #30 from Raphael Groner  ---
Stalled review, again. Sorry, I gave enough chances.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews#Submitter_not_responding

Ankur, if you're still interested in this package, please start with the
official nonresponsive maintainer process and request to orphan this package.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintainers

-- 
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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1208738] Review Request: vera++ - A tool for verification, analysis and transformation of C++ source code

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208738

Raphael Groner  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||needinfo?(taylor@braun-jone
   ||s.org)



--- Comment #29 from Raphael Groner  ---
Friendly ping?

-- 
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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1208738] Review Request: vera++ - A tool for verification, analysis and transformation of C++ source code

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208738



--- Comment #27 from Taylor Braun-Jones  ---
Ankur, I'd be willing to co-maintain the package with you. But it appears that
the Fedora Policy requires that a new ticket be opened at this point (if I
understand things correctly?). If you'd like to do that, feel free to list me
as a co-maintainer and/or reviewer.

-- 
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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1208738] Review Request: vera++ - A tool for verification, analysis and transformation of C++ source code

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208738

Raphael Groner  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|CLOSED  |POST
 Resolution|NOTABUG |---
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|projects...@smart.ms
  Flags||fedora-review+
   ||needinfo?(taylor@braun-jone
   ||s.org)



--- Comment #28 from Raphael Groner  ---
As there's now a vital sign from the original requester and I approved this
package in past, I'll re-approve.

Taylor, please go ahead with the package continuation. Thanks.

-- 
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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1208738] Review Request: vera++ - A tool for verification, analysis and transformation of C++ source code

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208738

Raphael Groner  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Blocks||201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW)
 Resolution|--- |NOTABUG
Last Closed|2015-09-13 13:21:52 |2016-02-04 17:13:27



--- Comment #26 from Raphael Groner  ---
Setting as dead, as policy recommends.


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449
[Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter
response should be blocking this bug.
-- 
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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1208738] Review Request: vera++ - A tool for verification, analysis and transformation of C++ source code

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208738

Raphael Groner  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|projects...@smart.ms|nob...@fedoraproject.org



-- 
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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1208738] Review Request: vera++ - A tool for verification, analysis and transformation of C++ source code

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208738

Raphael Groner  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|CLOSED  |ON_QA
 Resolution|INSUFFICIENT_DATA   |---
   Keywords||Reopened



--- Comment #25 from Raphael Groner  ---
Ankur, please follow our policy for stalled reviews.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews

-- 
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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1208738] Review Request: vera++ - A tool for verification, analysis and transformation of C++ source code

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208738

Raphael Groner  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review+  |



-- 
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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1208738] Review Request: vera++ - A tool for verification, analysis and transformation of C++ source code

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208738

Raphael Groner  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Whiteboard||NotReady



-- 
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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1208738] Review Request: vera++ - A tool for verification, analysis and transformation of C++ source code

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208738

Taylor Braun-Jones  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(taylor@braun-jone |
   |s.org)  |



--- Comment #23 from Taylor Braun-Jones  ---
Yes, leaving closed for now makes sense. My schedule has changed leaving me
with less time to work on things like this. I may get back around to this in
the future though.

-- 
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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1208738] Review Request: vera++ - A tool for verification, analysis and transformation of C++ source code

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208738

Raphael Groner  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |INSUFFICIENT_DATA
Last Closed||2015-09-13 13:21:52



--- Comment #22 from Raphael Groner  ---
Closing for now. Please feel free to reopen if there's still any interest for
the package.

-- 
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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1208738] Review Request: vera++ - A tool for verification, analysis and transformation of C++ source code

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208738

Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||tay...@braun-jones.org
  Flags||needinfo?(taylor@braun-jone
   ||s.org)



--- Comment #20 from Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms ---
Is there still any interest to maintain this package? If not, I'm going to
close this.

-- 
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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1208738] Review Request: vera++ - A tool for verification, analysis and transformation of C++ source code

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208738



--- Comment #21 from Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms ---
No builds found so far at koji neither bodhi.

-- 
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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1208738] Review Request: vera++ - A tool for verification, analysis and transformation of C++ source code

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208738

Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|POST



-- 
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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1208738] Review Request: vera++ - A tool for verification, analysis and transformation of C++ source code

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208738



--- Comment #19 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com ---
Git done (by process-git-requests).

-- 
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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1208738] Review Request: vera++ - A tool for verification, analysis and transformation of C++ source code

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208738

Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+



-- 
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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1208738] Review Request: vera++ - A tool for verification, analysis and transformation of C++ source code

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208738

Taylor Braun-Jones tay...@braun-jones.org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-cvs?



--- Comment #18 from Taylor Braun-Jones tay...@braun-jones.org ---
New Package SCM Request
===
Package Name: vera++
Short Description: A tool for verification, analysis and transformation of C++
source code
Upstream URL: http://bitbucket.org/verateam/vera
Owners: nocnokneo
Branches: f20 f21 f22 el6 epel7
InitialCC:

-- 
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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1208738] Review Request: vera++ - A tool for verification, analysis and transformation of C++ source code

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208738



--- Comment #17 from Taylor Braun-Jones tay...@braun-jones.org ---
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #16)
 Still some open issues I would like to see fixed in the final package:
 
 - ASL 2.0 is meant for vera.ctest but not for vera.cmake (there's no such
 named file!) as you mention it in the comment, though I am not sure if this
 license includes then also the full source for the tests. Please be careful
 here and better ask upstream if in doubt. That can be pointless since it is
 valid only for the tests and they do not go into the compiled RPM.
 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ?rd=Licensing/
 FAQ#Multiple_licensing_situations

Sounds good. I've emailed le...@lists.fedoraproject.org to get it figured out.

 - You can add BuildArch: noarch and Requires: cmake (or cmake28
 respectively) to the devel subpackage because it does not include by itself
 any arch dependent binaries and is useful only with cmake at hand.

Makes sense. Fixed.

 APPROVED

Thanks for your help, Raphael. Do you mind if I add you as a co-maintainer? If
so, what is your Fedora Account username?

-- 
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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1208738] Review Request: vera++ - A tool for verification, analysis and transformation of C++ source code

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208738

Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #16 from Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms ---
Still some open issues I would like to see fixed in the final package:

- ASL 2.0 is meant for vera.ctest but not for vera.cmake (there's no such named
file!) as you mention it in the comment, though I am not sure if this license
includes then also the full source for the tests. Please be careful here and
better ask upstream if in doubt. That can be pointless since it is valid only
for the tests and they do not go into the compiled RPM.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ?rd=Licensing/FAQ#Multiple_licensing_situations

- You can add BuildArch: noarch and Requires: cmake (or cmake28
respectively) to the devel subpackage because it does not include by itself any
arch dependent binaries and is useful only with cmake at hand.


APPROVED

-- 
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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1208738] Review Request: vera++ - A tool for verification, analysis and transformation of C++ source code

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208738



--- Comment #15 from Taylor Braun-Jones tay...@braun-jones.org ---
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #13)

  I did however hit a couple failing unit tests due to incompatibility with 
  Lua
  5.3. I have simply disabled Lua support on Fedora  22 for now. Upstream bug
  report:
  
  https://bitbucket.org/verateam/vera/issue/74/vera-segfaults-when-built-with-
  lua-53#comment-17202574
 
 You could use BR: compat-lua-devel as like for compat-lua / compat-lua-libs
 packages instead, they have 5.1.5 as version.

Thanks for the heads up, I hadn't thought to check for a compat- version of
lua. Unfortunately, it didn't solve the crash like I had hoped it would, so for
now I've left lua support disabled for Fedora  22

 [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
  Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
  BSL (v1.0), Unknown or generated. 45 files have unknown license.
  Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/builder/fedora-
  review/1208738-vera++/licensecheck.txt
 
 == Please fix or clarify for the bundled cpptcl.
 Maybe you should unbundle into a separate package.
 See
 http://cpptcl.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/cpptcl/src/LICENSE?revision=1.
 1view=markup
 The test sources should be okay without any license text.

I added the following comment above the License field:

# Bundled cpptcl package has a non-standard open source license - but more
# permissive than Boost so Boost is the effective license. See:
#
# https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ?rd=Licensing/FAQ

 vera.ctest : Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (see
inside the file for the complete license and copyright)
 
 == Please add ASL 2.0 to License: and mention it in comment for the tests.
 http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt

Fixed

 [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
  Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
  vera++-devel
 
 == Please fix.

This must be a fedora-review bug - I have exactly this line for the devel
subpackage.

 [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
  Note: %define requiring justification: %define enable_lua_support 1,
  %define enable_lua_support 0
 
 == Please fix.

Fixed.

 == Please fix. You can remove the shebang from all those files in the list
 because they won't be called directly.
 http://wiki.rosalab.ru/en/index.php/Rpmlint_Errors#non-executable-script
 Adjust this for tclsh:
 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/
 Packaging_tricks#Remove_shebang_from_Python_libraries

Fixed.

-- 
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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1208738] Review Request: vera++ - A tool for verification, analysis and transformation of C++ source code

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208738



--- Comment #13 from Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms ---
(In reply to Taylor Braun-Jones from comment #12)
…
 I'm not able to reproduce the rawhide error that you're are seeing. Since
 what you were seeing was an internal compiler error, I wonder if it was a
 buggy gcc-c++ package that has already been updated in the last 5 hours.

That's odd. I am using fedora-review in a f21 system, with general use case as
mock in a chroot for rawhide.

 I did however hit a couple failing unit tests due to incompatibility with Lua
 5.3. I have simply disabled Lua support on Fedora  22 for now. Upstream bug
 report:
 
 https://bitbucket.org/verateam/vera/issue/74/vera-segfaults-when-built-with-
 lua-53#comment-17202574

You could use BR: compat-lua-devel as like for compat-lua / compat-lua-libs
packages instead, they have 5.1.5 as version.


Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
===
- 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: Cannot find LICENSE_1_0.txt in rpm(s)
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text

== Ignore, we use %license since this is a new guideline but still
fedora-review without patch.

= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
 BSL (v1.0), Unknown or generated. 45 files have unknown license.
 Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/builder/fedora-
 review/1208738-vera++/licensecheck.txt

== Please fix or clarify for the bundled cpptcl.
Maybe you should unbundle into a separate package.
See
http://cpptcl.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/cpptcl/src/LICENSE?revision=1.1view=markup
The test sources should be okay without any license text.

vera.ctest : Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (see
 inside the file for the complete license and copyright)

== Please add ASL 2.0 to License: and mention it in comment for the tests.
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt

[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.

== See above for bundled cpptcl. Currently, there's no package available for
cpptcl.

[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: 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.
[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]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[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.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: 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.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
 are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[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 

[Bug 1208738] Review Request: vera++ - A tool for verification, analysis and transformation of C++ source code

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208738



--- Comment #14 from Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms ---
Created attachment 1011857
  -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1011857action=edit
licensecheck.txt

-- 
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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1208738] Review Request: vera++ - A tool for verification, analysis and transformation of C++ source code

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208738

Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   See Also|https://bugzilla.redhat.com |
   |/show_bug.cgi?id=1209261|



-- 
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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1208738] Review Request: vera++ - A tool for verification, analysis and transformation of C++ source code

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208738



--- Comment #8 from Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms ---
Tried with fedora-review but mock build fails for rawhide. Relevant log
snippet:

/usr/bin/cmake -E cmake_progress_report
/builddir/build/BUILD/vera++-1.3.0/build/CMakeFiles 36
[ 63%] Building CXX object src/CMakeFiles/vera.dir/structures/SourceLines.cpp.o
cd /builddir/build/BUILD/vera++-1.3.0/build/src  /usr/lib64/ccache/c++  
-DVERA_LUA -DVERA_PYTHON -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security
-Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong
--param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -grecord-gcc-switches
-specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1 -m64 -mtune=generic  -isystem
/usr/include/python2.7 -I/builddir/build/BUILD/vera++-1.3.0/build/src-o
CMakeFiles/vera.dir/structures/SourceLines.cpp.o -c
/builddir/build/BUILD/vera++-1.3.0/src/structures/SourceLines.cpp
c++: internal compiler error: Killed (program cc1plus)
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
See http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla for instructions.

I'll attach the full build.log file.

-- 
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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1208738] Review Request: vera++ - A tool for verification, analysis and transformation of C++ source code

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208738



--- Comment #10 from Taylor Braun-Jones tay...@braun-jones.org ---
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #8)
 Tried with fedora-review but mock build fails for rawhide. 

Thanks. Yes, I need to look into that as soon as f22, epel6, and epel7 are
squared away. I'm guessing it's related to:

https://bitbucket.org/verateam/vera/issue/71

-- 
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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1208738] Review Request: vera++ - A tool for verification, analysis and transformation of C++ source code

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208738



--- Comment #11 from Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms ---
Okay, for now this is FTBFS. Each package must be build for rawhide to comply
with policy.

Unfortunately, we must wait for upstream or any available patch to fix gcc5.
While this is not happening, the review is stalled.

-- 
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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1208738] Review Request: vera++ - A tool for verification, analysis and transformation of C++ source code

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208738



--- Comment #9 from Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms ---
Created attachment 1011553
  -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1011553action=edit
c++: internal compiler error: Killed (program cc1plus)

build.log as mock gives me within a run of fedora-review.

c++: internal compiler error: Killed (program cc1plus)

-- 
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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1208738] Review Request: vera++ - A tool for verification, analysis and transformation of C++ source code

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208738

Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   See Also||https://bugzilla.redhat.com
   ||/show_bug.cgi?id=1209261



-- 
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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1208738] Review Request: vera++ - A tool for verification, analysis and transformation of C++ source code

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208738



--- Comment #12 from Taylor Braun-Jones tay...@braun-jones.org ---
Thanks, I didn't realize that was the policy (nor did the two reviewers of my
recently approved ceres-solver package request which also has problems building
with gcc-5.0)

I'm not able to reproduce the rawhide error that you're are seeing. Since what
you were seeing was an internal compiler error, I wonder if it was a buggy
gcc-c++ package that has already been updated in the last 5 hours. I did
however hit a couple failing unit tests due to incompatibility with Lua 5.3. I
have simply disabled Lua support on Fedora  22 for now. Upstream bug report:

https://bitbucket.org/verateam/vera/issue/74/vera-segfaults-when-built-with-lua-53#comment-17202574

Successful rawhide scratch build:

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9425142

The spec and srpm files at the original URLs have been updated.

-- 
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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1208738] Review Request: vera++ - A tool for verification, analysis and transformation of C++ source code

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208738



--- Comment #7 from Taylor Braun-Jones tay...@braun-jones.org ---
Looking into the details of vera++, the Fedora Tcl guidelines, and the
%{name}-plugins subpackage option:

* A tcl-%{name} package does not apply because vera++ includes a build-in Tcl
interpretter.

* I'm not sure a %{name}-plugins subpackage makes sense either because the
out-of-the-box expected behavior is to be able to run a default set of checks
and transformations be simply running `vera++ foo.cpp`

I've updated the spec and srpm links with the latest fixes.

-- 
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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1208738] Review Request: vera++ - A tool for verification, analysis and transformation of C++ source code

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208738



--- Comment #6 from Taylor Braun-Jones tay...@braun-jones.org ---
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #4)
 Thanks for the fixes. So let's look deeper into the project details.
 
 (In reply to Taylor Braun-Jones from comment #3)
  (In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #2)
   * MUST: Remove the Group: line. This tag is deprecated since Fedora 17.
   https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/
   How_to_create_an_RPM_package#SPEC_file_overview
  
  So should I remove this even if I'm targeting EPEL6?
 
 Not sure for what it is needed at all. 

Neither am I. Removed.

   * SHOULD: Why do you package the cmake and tcl files? Those look like 
   source
   or general development files to me. Shouldn't they be placed into a -devel
   subpackage? Maybe do not include them at all (if in doubt).
%{_libdir}/%{name}/*.cmake
%{_libdir}/%{name}/*.cmake.in
   …
%{_libdir}/%{name}/rules/*.tcl
%{_libdir}/%{name}/transformations/*.tcl
  
  These provide the CMake macros needed to integrate automatic vera++ checks
  into a CMake-based project. See Running Vera++ as a test with CMake and
  Running Vera++ during the build with CMake here:
  
  https://bitbucket.org/verateam/vera/wiki/Running
 
 * Okay, vera++ can be used as a standalone executable besides a full
 integration into another project at build time. Please put those *.cmake*
 files into an own (sub-)package named vera++-devel or cmake-vera++ because
 they are not needed for the minimal use case. Put the main package as a
 Requires. For the tcl files, please see my next comment as this seems to be
 another special case.
 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Devel_Packages

Okay, cmake files moved into devel subpackage

 * Further, you would have to comply with tcl guideline in particular,
 package especially the *.tcl files into tcl-vera++ as the special guideline
 tells. Also pay attention to the other requirements there.
 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Tcl
 
 --
 Some other new things I see as general review points by now:
 
 * There is some ctest stuff provided in the upstream source. You could use
 that for a %check section in your spec file.
 https://bitbucket.org/verateam/vera/src/
 30f9235797e5e6c34fda48bdaa05af1c0e558dd8/vera.ctest?at=master
 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Cmake#Specfile_Usage

This is what I have in the current .spec file posted for review:

%check
cd build
# Skip test that fails when run inside a mock chroot. See:
# https://bitbucket.org/verateam/vera/issue/73
ctest --output-on-failure --exclude-regex RuleDUMP

Is that what you are referring to?
 * For EPEL, you have to use cmake28 as for RHEL instead of just cmake.
 Please adjust the contitional.

So you want something like this:

%if (0%{?rhel} == 6) || (0%{?epel} == 6)

Is that right? If so, I can certainly do that, but I'm not sure what the point
of the extra conditional is. Under what scenario would check for (0%{?rhel} ==
6) not be sufficient?

 * Please put the generated files from the doc subfolders also in the package
 (or a %{name}-doc named and noarch subpackage if the content is more than
 1MB in size), you could do this easily by help from the %doc macro.
 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Documentation

The only doc file that gets generated is vera++.html which is only 59K.

 * Plugins (lua, python, tcl) could also get their own subpackage named as
 %{name}-plugins. But this is SHOULD only if it saves some significant space
 in the main package (1MB).
 https://bitbucket.org/verateam/vera/src/
 30f9235797e5e6c34fda48bdaa05af1c0e558dd8/src/plugins/?at=master
 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package
 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package#Subpackages

So even the .tcl files would go in this %{name}-plugins package? I like that
approach best because even though the sum of all the .py, tcl, and .lua files
is less than 200K currently, I expect that it will continue to grow since
python and lua support is a brand new feature. And I think grouping all of
these files into a %{name}-plugins seems more sensible and discoverable than
putting some into a tcl-vera++ package.

 * There's also a manpage generated that you should include into the package.

Isn't that covered by the following line?

%{_datadir}/man/man1/%{name}.1*

-- 
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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1208738] Review Request: vera++ - A tool for verification, analysis and transformation of C++ source code

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208738



--- Comment #4 from Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms ---
Thanks for the fixes. So let's look deeper into the project details.

(In reply to Taylor Braun-Jones from comment #3)
 (In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #2)
  * MUST: Remove the Group: line. This tag is deprecated since Fedora 17.
  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/
  How_to_create_an_RPM_package#SPEC_file_overview
 
 So should I remove this even if I'm targeting EPEL6?

Not sure for what it is needed at all. 

  * SHOULD: Why do you package the cmake and tcl files? Those look like source
  or general development files to me. Shouldn't they be placed into a -devel
  subpackage? Maybe do not include them at all (if in doubt).
   %{_libdir}/%{name}/*.cmake
   %{_libdir}/%{name}/*.cmake.in
  …
   %{_libdir}/%{name}/rules/*.tcl
   %{_libdir}/%{name}/transformations/*.tcl
 
 These provide the CMake macros needed to integrate automatic vera++ checks
 into a CMake-based project. See Running Vera++ as a test with CMake and
 Running Vera++ during the build with CMake here:
 
 https://bitbucket.org/verateam/vera/wiki/Running

* Okay, vera++ can be used as a standalone executable besides a full
integration into another project at build time. Please put those *.cmake* files
into an own (sub-)package named vera++-devel or cmake-vera++ because they are
not needed for the minimal use case. Put the main package as a Requires. For
the tcl files, please see my next comment as this seems to be another special
case.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Devel_Packages

* Further, you would have to comply with tcl guideline in particular, package
especially the *.tcl files into tcl-vera++ as the special guideline tells. Also
pay attention to the other requirements there.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Tcl

--
Some other new things I see as general review points by now:

* There is some ctest stuff provided in the upstream source. You could use that
for a %check section in your spec file.
https://bitbucket.org/verateam/vera/src/30f9235797e5e6c34fda48bdaa05af1c0e558dd8/vera.ctest?at=master
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Cmake#Specfile_Usage

* For EPEL, you have to use cmake28 as for RHEL instead of just cmake. Please
adjust the contitional.

* Please put the generated files from the doc subfolders also in the package
(or a %{name}-doc named and noarch subpackage if the content is more than 1MB
in size), you could do this easily by help from the %doc macro.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Documentation

* Plugins (lua, python, tcl) could also get their own subpackage named as
%{name}-plugins. But this is SHOULD only if it saves some significant space in
the main package (1MB).
https://bitbucket.org/verateam/vera/src/30f9235797e5e6c34fda48bdaa05af1c0e558dd8/src/plugins/?at=master
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package#Subpackages

-- 
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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1208738] Review Request: vera++ - A tool for verification, analysis and transformation of C++ source code

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208738



--- Comment #5 from Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms ---
* There's also a manpage generated that you should include into the package.
https://bitbucket.org/verateam/vera/src/30f9235797e5e6c34fda48bdaa05af1c0e558dd8/doc/CMakeLists.txt?at=master#cl-36
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Manpages

-- 
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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1208738] Review Request: vera++ - A tool for verification, analysis and transformation of C++ source code

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208738



--- Comment #2 from Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms ---
Informal review of your spec file. My comments are in order of the spec file
lines.

* MUST: Remove the Group: line. This tag is deprecated since Fedora 17.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package#SPEC_file_overview

* SHOULD: You can use the %{url} macro to shorten the links:
 URL:https://bitbucket.org/verateam/vera/wiki/Home
 Source0:
 https://bitbucket.org/verateam/vera/downloads/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
URL:https://bitbucket.org/verateam/vera
Source0:%{url}/downloads/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz

* MUST: Where do you have the patch from? Please add a comment. You could
inform upstream and use a link into the upstream tracker.
 Patch0: 0001-add_LIB_SUFFIX_to_lib_install_rules.patch

* SHOULD: Please add popd at the end of %build to identicate where your pushd
environment ends.
 %build
 mkdir build
 pushd build

* SHOULD: Move the following rm line from %install into separate %clean section
and better use the more commonly used %{buildroot} macro instead. Instructions
to clean out the build root. Note that this section is now redundant in Fedora
and is only necessary for EPEL.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package#SPEC_file_overview
 %install
 rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
%clean
rm -rf %{buildroot}

* SHOULD: The README.txt file can go outside of the conditional to avoid
further confusion.
 %files
 %if (0%{?rhel} == 06)
 %doc README.txt LICENSE_1_0.txt
 %else
 %doc README.txt
 %license LICENSE_1_0.txt
 %endif
%files
%if (0%{?rhel} == 06)
%doc LICENSE_1_0.txt
%else
%license LICENSE_1_0.txt
%endif
%doc README.txt

* SHOULD: Use the %{name] macro consistently. Also, there should not be an
extension to any manpage cause rpmbuild can do the compression magically. For
the documentation folder you can use the shorter %{_pkgdocdir} macro.
 %{_bindir}/vera++
…
 %{_datadir}/man/man1/vera++.1.gz
 %{_datadir}/%{name}/doc/vera++.html
%{_bindir}/{name}
…
%{_datadir}/man/man1/%{name}.1*
%{_pkgdocdir}/%{name}.html

* SHOULD: Why do you package the cmake and tcl files? Those look like source or
general development files to me. Shouldn't they be placed into a -devel
subpackage? Maybe do not include them at all (if in doubt).
 %{_libdir}/%{name}/*.cmake
 %{_libdir}/%{name}/*.cmake.in
…
 %{_libdir}/%{name}/rules/*.tcl
 %{_libdir}/%{name}/transformations/*.tcl

I could do also an official fedora-review run when my questions are answered.

-- 
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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1208738] Review Request: vera++ - A tool for verification, analysis and transformation of C++ source code

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208738

Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||projects...@smart.ms
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|projects...@smart.ms
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #1 from Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms ---
Taken. :)

-- 
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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1208738] Review Request: vera++ - A tool for verification, analysis and transformation of C++ source code

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208738



--- Comment #3 from Taylor Braun-Jones tay...@braun-jones.org ---
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #2)
 * MUST: Remove the Group: line. This tag is deprecated since Fedora 17.
 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/
 How_to_create_an_RPM_package#SPEC_file_overview

So should I remove this even if I'm targeting EPEL6?

 * SHOULD: You can use the %{url} macro to shorten the links:
  URL:https://bitbucket.org/verateam/vera/wiki/Home
  Source0:
  https://bitbucket.org/verateam/vera/downloads/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
 URL:https://bitbucket.org/verateam/vera
 Source0:%{url}/downloads/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz

Fixed, thanks.

 * MUST: Where do you have the patch from? Please add a comment. You could
 inform upstream and use a link into the upstream tracker.
  Patch0: 0001-add_LIB_SUFFIX_to_lib_install_rules.patch

Fixed

 * SHOULD: Please add popd at the end of %build to identicate where your
 pushd environment ends.
  %build
  mkdir build
  pushd build

Fixed

 * SHOULD: Move the following rm line from %install into separate %clean
 section and better use the more commonly used %{buildroot} macro instead.
 Instructions to clean out the build root. Note that this section is now
 redundant in Fedora and is only necessary for EPEL.
 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/
 How_to_create_an_RPM_package#SPEC_file_overview
  %install
  rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
 %clean
 rm -rf %{buildroot}

Fixed

 * SHOULD: The README.txt file can go outside of the conditional to avoid
 further confusion.
  %files
  %if (0%{?rhel} == 06)
  %doc README.txt LICENSE_1_0.txt
  %else
  %doc README.txt
  %license LICENSE_1_0.txt
  %endif
 %files
 %if (0%{?rhel} == 06)
 %doc LICENSE_1_0.txt
 %else
 %license LICENSE_1_0.txt
 %endif
 %doc README.txt

Good point, fixed.

 * SHOULD: Use the %{name] macro consistently. Also, there should not be an
 extension to any manpage cause rpmbuild can do the compression magically.
 For the documentation folder you can use the shorter %{_pkgdocdir} macro.
  %{_bindir}/vera++
 …
  %{_datadir}/man/man1/vera++.1.gz
  %{_datadir}/%{name}/doc/vera++.html
 %{_bindir}/{name}
 …
 %{_datadir}/man/man1/%{name}.1*
 %{_pkgdocdir}/%{name}.html

Fixed for the man page, but %{_pkgdocdir} doesn't work on EPEL[67]

 * SHOULD: Why do you package the cmake and tcl files? Those look like source
 or general development files to me. Shouldn't they be placed into a -devel
 subpackage? Maybe do not include them at all (if in doubt).
  %{_libdir}/%{name}/*.cmake
  %{_libdir}/%{name}/*.cmake.in
 …
  %{_libdir}/%{name}/rules/*.tcl
  %{_libdir}/%{name}/transformations/*.tcl

These provide the CMake macros needed to integrate automatic vera++ checks into
a CMake-based project. See Running Vera++ as a test with CMake and Running
Vera++ during the build with CMake here:

https://bitbucket.org/verateam/vera/wiki/Running

 I could do also an official fedora-review run when my questions are answered.

Files are updated and ready for review. Thanks!

-- 
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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review