[Bug 516341] Review Request: pcc - The Portable C Compiler

Wed Aug 12 14:53:43 UTC 2009

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516341

Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking at uos.de> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |martin.gieseking at uos.de
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?

--- Comment #10 from Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking at uos.de>  2009-08-12 10:53:42 EDT ---
Hi Jussi,

here is my review. I couldn't find any mistakes. Everything looks fine. If
you're going to exclude the Fortran compiler you can remove the byacc build
dependency. 

rpmlint output:
pcc.i586: E: devel-dependency glibc-devel
pcc.i586: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/pcc/i586-redhat-linux-gnu/0.9.9/lib/libpcc.a
pcc.i586: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/pcc/i586-redhat-linux-gnu/0.9.9/include/libpcc_stddef.h
pcc.i586: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/pcc/i586-redhat-linux-gnu/0.9.9/lib/libpccsoftfloat.a
pcc.i586: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/pcc/i586-redhat-linux-gnu/0.9.9/include/libpcc_float.h
pcc.i586: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/pcc/i586-redhat-linux-gnu/0.9.9/include/stddef.h
pcc.i586: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/pcc/i586-redhat-linux-gnu/0.9.9/include/stdarg.h
pcc.i586: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/pcc/i586-redhat-linux-gnu/0.9.9/include/float.h
pcc.i586: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/pcc/i586-redhat-linux-gnu/0.9.9/include/libpcc_stdarg.h
pcc.i586: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/pcc/i586-redhat-linux-gnu/0.9.9/include/stdbool.h
pcc.i586: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/pcc/i586-redhat-linux-gnu/0.9.9/include/libpcc_stdbool.h
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 10 warnings.

These warnings are expected and can be ignored (see below).

---------------------------------
keys used in following checklist:

[+] OK
[#] OK, not applicable
[-] needs work
---------------------------------

[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+] 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 must be included in %doc.
    - no license file included

[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL.
    md5 hashes:
    pcc-090811.tgz:      f5d7f2e3a305c32033578045c3404d85
    pcc-libs-090811.tgz: 34e79113d554dac97b1c2c2dd8729f4d

[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[+] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
    - compiler is currently restricted to ix86

[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
[#] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
    - no locales

[#] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
    - no shared libraries included

[#] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ...
    - package is not relocatable

[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
[+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[#] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. 
    - no large doc files

[#] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application.
    - no %doc section

[#] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[#] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
    - this is a development package so header and library files should stay in
the main package (as this is the case)

[#] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
(for directory ownership and usability).
    - no pkgconfig files

[#] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in
a -devel package.
[#] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.
[#] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file
    - no GUI
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. 
[+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
    - builds in mock

[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. 
    - some small test programs compile w/o errors and work as expected  

[#] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
    - no scriptlets

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.