[Bug 1375765] Review Request: yosys - Yosys Open SYnthesis Suite, including Verilog synthesizer

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

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1375765

Randy Barlow <randy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |spacewar@xxxxxxxxx
              Flags|                            |needinfo?(spacewar@xxxxxxxx
                   |                            |m)



--- Comment #4 from Randy Barlow <randy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ---
Hello Eric! I've found a few things we need to address below. To get approval,
you will need to address at least the items in the MUST section. The others are
suggestions for you.


Package Review
==============

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


Issues:
=======
- All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
  are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
  Note: These BR are not needed: gawk
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2


===== MUST items =====
bowlofeggs notes:

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.

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.
[-]: 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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "ISC", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "GPL (v3
     or later)", "Unknown or generated". 574 files have unknown license.
     Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/rbarlow/reviews/1375765-yosys/licensecheck.txt
     bowlofeggs: It seems that the license is complicated here. You should
     probably write: ISC, MIT/X11 (BSD Like), LGPL 2.1, and GPL v3 in the
     license field. The GPL code seems to be in .v files only, so it is not
     being combined with the other licenses in my analysis.
[-]: 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.
     bowlofeggs: Though it doesn't appear that viz.js is bundled, it does
     appear to be a build dependency. I am not certain whether this is or
     is not allowed so we should do research to find out (if you know it to
     be and can link me to documentation, please do!). It would certainly be
     cleaner if viz.js were packaged. I am also not certain what it is being
     used for. Does it get used to generate the pdfs in some way? If it
     isn't truly needed, perhaps we can just patch the Makefile so it doesn't
     try to use it.
[!]: Changelog in prescribed format.
     bowlofeggs: You should reference the BZ in the changelog, like:
     - Initial version (#1375765).
[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.
[!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
     bowlofeggs: You should use a macro for /usr/bin/abc
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[!]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
     bowlofeggs: The /usr/share/yosys/python3/smtio.py file doesn't belong
     in /usr/share as far as I can tell, and also doesn't have a reason to
     be executable. It seems to only define some classes and data
     structures. I believe it belongs in %{python2_sitelib}/smtio.py
     instead. Is seems to be used by /usr/bin/yosys-smtbmc but that code
     is mangling the Python path to find this library. I suggest working
     with upstream to remove the path manipulation and to put smtio.py in
     the python2 sitelib where it belongs. Then it can just be imported
     naturally.
[-]: 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 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]: 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:
[!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
     Note: Could not download Source2:
     http://http.debian.net/debian/pool/main/y/yosys/yosys_0.6-6.debian.tar.xz
     See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags
[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
     file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
     bowlofeggs: I recommend filing an issue upstream to request a LICENSE
     file in the repo, and then documenting a URL to your ticket in your
     spec file.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in yosys-
     doc , yosys-devel , yosys-debuginfo
     bowlofeggs: You could put the %{?_isa} on your subpackages.
[?]: 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.
[!]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
     Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
     bowlofeggs: I think it's upset about the man pages URL returning 404
[-]: 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
     architectures.
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
     bowlofeggs: Upstream does appear to have a folder called tests.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
     Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 3880960 bytes in /usr/share
     bowlofeggs: I suggest moving the non-arch data into a noarch package.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: yosys-0.6.0-1.20160923git8f5bf6d.fc26.x86_64.rpm
          yosys-doc-0.6.0-1.20160923git8f5bf6d.fc26.x86_64.rpm
          yosys-devel-0.6.0-1.20160923git8f5bf6d.fc26.x86_64.rpm
          yosys-debuginfo-0.6.0-1.20160923git8f5bf6d.fc26.x86_64.rpm
          yosys-0.6.0-1.20160923git8f5bf6d.fc26.src.rpm
yosys.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Yosys
yosys.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Yosys
yosys.src: W: invalid-url Source2:
http://http.debian.net/debian/pool/main/y/yosys/yosys_0.6-6.debian.tar.xz HTTP
Error 404: Not Found
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: yosys-debuginfo-0.6.0-1.20160923git8f5bf6d.fc26.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
yosys.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Yosys
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.



Requires
--------
yosys-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/bash
    yosys

yosys (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python3
    abc
    graphviz
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libdl.so.2()(64bit)
    libffi.so.6()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libreadline.so.6()(64bit)
    librt.so.1()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit)
    libtcl8.6.so()(64bit)
    python-xdot
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

yosys-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    yosys

yosys-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
yosys-devel:
    yosys-devel
    yosys-devel(x86-64)

yosys:
    yosys
    yosys(x86-64)

yosys-doc:
    yosys-doc
    yosys-doc(x86-64)

yosys-debuginfo:
    yosys-debuginfo
    yosys-debuginfo(x86-64)



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/cliffordwolf/yosys/archive/8f5bf6de32bcc478312d8f5410826b4894ebadba.tar.gz#/yosys-8f5bf6d.tar.gz
:
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
624b5c74dfc8374810b762aefec6dc3cb215811d1b6807c82a08f149d3dcf92a
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
624b5c74dfc8374810b762aefec6dc3cb215811d1b6807c82a08f149d3dcf92a
https://github.com/mdaines/viz.js/releases/download/0.0.3/viz.js :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
0eb4139c4a6067e73585338e32e9f7515490edd885d16147322a48e43b120012
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
0eb4139c4a6067e73585338e32e9f7515490edd885d16147322a48e43b120012


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1375765
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R,
PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




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