[Bug 1546394] Review Request: open-amp - Open Asymmetric Multi Processing (OpenAMP) framework project
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1546394 Peter Robinson changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED CC||pbrobin...@gmail.com Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2020-03-05 19:47:35 -- 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 1546394] Review Request: open-amp - Open Asymmetric Multi Processing (OpenAMP) framework project
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1546394 Bug 1546394 depends on bug 1546376, which changed state. Bug 1546376 Summary: Review Request: libmetal - An abstraction layer across user-space Linux, baremetal, and RTOS environments https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1546376 What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- 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
[Bug 1546394] Review Request: open-amp - Open Asymmetric Multi Processing (OpenAMP) framework project
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1546394 --- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/open-amp -- 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
[Bug 1546394] Review Request: open-amp - Open Asymmetric Multi Processing (OpenAMP) framework project
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1546394 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin --- All ok, package approved. Package Review == Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed = MUST items = C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "zlib/libpng", "*No copyright* BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause) GPL (v2 or later)", "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause)", "GPL (v2)". 121 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review /open-amp/review-open-amp/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [-]: 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 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]: 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. [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]: 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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [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: [-]: 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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 archite
[Bug 1546394] Review Request: open-amp - Open Asymmetric Multi Processing (OpenAMP) framework project
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1546394 --- Comment #2 from Jared Smith --- Spec URL: https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/open-amp/open-amp.spec SRPM URL: https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/open-amp/open-amp-2017.10-2.fc28.src.rpm -- 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
[Bug 1546394] Review Request: open-amp - Open Asymmetric Multi Processing (OpenAMP) framework project
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1546394 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Hello, Same as before: - This should be in the -devel subpackage: %{_libdir}/libopen_amp.so See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Devel_Packages - Your -devel subpackage should require the main package: %package devel Summary: Development files for OpenAMP Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} Consequently you don't need to add %license LICENSE.md in the -devel subpackage. - There should probably be a %make_build before %make_install to use parallel computation: %build %cmake -DCMAKE_INSTALL_LIBDIR=%{_libdir} \ -DCMAKE_INCLUDE_PATH=%{_includedir}/libmetal/ \ -DCMAKE_LIBRARY_PATH=%{_libdir} \ -DWITH_STATIC_LIB=OFF \ -DWITH_APPS=ON . %make_build - It's also usual to build in a subdir: %build mkdir build && cd build %cmake -DCMAKE_INSTALL_LIBDIR=%{_libdir} \ -DCMAKE_INCLUDE_PATH=%{_includedir}/libmetal/ \ -DCMAKE_LIBRARY_PATH=%{_libdir} \ -DWITH_STATIC_LIB=OFF \ -DWITH_APPS=ON .. %make_build %install cd build %make_install - Use a more meaningful name for the archive, with: Source0: https://github.com/OpenAMP/open-amp/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz - Not an error, just a preference: you could move %ldconfig_scriptlets after %install -- 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
[Bug 1546394] Review Request: open-amp - Open Asymmetric Multi Processing (OpenAMP) framework project
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1546394 Jared Smith changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1269538 (IoT) Depends On||1546376 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269538 [Bug 1269538] Tracker for IoT on Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1546376 [Bug 1546376] Review Request: libmetal - An abstraction layer across user-space Linux, baremetal, and RTOS environments -- 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