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

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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



--- Comment #15 from Taylor Braun-Jones <taylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ---
(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.
> 1&view=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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review





[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]