Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: arm-gp2x-linux-gcc - Cross Compiling GNU GCC targeted at arm-gp2x-linux https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=242206 kevin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From kevin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-07-28 13:35 EST ------- (NOTE: The parts where a binary RPM is needed were checked against the bootstrap version.) MUST Items: + rpmlint output: + SPRM has this: W: arm-gp2x-linux-gcc rpm-buildroot-usage %prep sed -e 's,find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT,find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%_bindir $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%_libexecdir,' $a > $b This one is OK. E: arm-gp2x-linux-gcc hardcoded-library-path in $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/lib/libiberty.a E: arm-gp2x-linux-gcc hardcoded-library-path in $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/lib/gcc/%{target}/%{version}/install-tools E: arm-gp2x-linux-gcc hardcoded-library-path in $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/lib/gcc/%{target}/%{version}/*.la E: arm-gp2x-linux-gcc hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/gcc/%{target}/ E: arm-gp2x-linux-gcc hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/gcc/%{target}/%{version}/lib*c++.a E: arm-gp2x-linux-gcc hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/gcc/%{target}/%{version}/include/c++ E: arm-gp2x-linux-gcc hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/gcc/%{target}/%{version}/lib*c++.a E: arm-gp2x-linux-gcc hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/gcc/%{target}/%{version}/include/c++ (see comment #9 and comment #10). These are OK in principle, assuming the files actually do end up in /usr/lib even on x86_64. It's OK for them to be there because they're target files. + main package has this: W: arm-gp2x-linux-gcc devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/gcc/arm-gp2x-linux/4.1.2/include/stdarg.h W: arm-gp2x-linux-gcc devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/gcc/arm-gp2x-linux/4.1.2/include/stddef.h W: arm-gp2x-linux-gcc devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/gcc/arm-gp2x-linux/4.1.2/include/varargs.h W: arm-gp2x-linux-gcc devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/gcc/arm-gp2x-linux/4.1.2/include/linux/a.out.h W: arm-gp2x-linux-gcc devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/gcc/arm-gp2x-linux/4.1.2/include/mmintrin.h W: arm-gp2x-linux-gcc devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/gcc/arm-gp2x-linux/4.1.2/libgcc_eh.a W: arm-gp2x-linux-gcc devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/gcc/arm-gp2x-linux/4.1.2/libgcov.a W: arm-gp2x-linux-gcc devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/gcc/arm-gp2x-linux/4.1.2/include/syslimits.h W: arm-gp2x-linux-gcc devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/gcc/arm-gp2x-linux/4.1.2/include/stdbool.h W: arm-gp2x-linux-gcc devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/gcc/arm-gp2x-linux/4.1.2/include/float.h W: arm-gp2x-linux-gcc devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/gcc/arm-gp2x-linux/4.1.2/include/unwind.h W: arm-gp2x-linux-gcc devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/gcc/arm-gp2x-linux/4.1.2/libgcc.a W: arm-gp2x-linux-gcc devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/gcc/arm-gp2x-linux/4.1.2/include/iso646.h W: arm-gp2x-linux-gcc devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/gcc/arm-gp2x-linux/4.1.2/include/limits.h These are all OK, as this is a developer package. + -debuginfo has empty output. + named and versioned according to the Package Naming Guidelines + spec file name matches base package name + Packaging Guidelines: + License GPL OK, matches actual license + No known patent problems + No emulator, no firmware, no binary-only or prebuilt components + Complies with the FHS + proper changelog, tags, BuildRoot, Requires, BuildRequires, Summary, Description + no non-UTF-8 characters + relevant documentation is included + RPM_OPT_FLAGS are used + debuginfo package is valid + no host static libraries nor .la files (I think we can give the target static libraries (libgcc.a, libgcc_eh.a and libgcov.a) a pass.) + no duplicated system libraries (libiberty is always static, so it can't be shared with the native version) + no rpaths, at least on i386 (I ran readelf -d on the executables) + no configuration files, so %config guideline doesn't apply + no init scripts, so init script guideline doesn't apply + no GUI programs, so no .desktop file present or needed + no timestamp-clobbering file commands + omission of _smp_mflags justified by a comment + scriptlets are valid + not a web application, so web application guideline doesn't apply + no conflicts + complies with all the legal guidelines + COPYING included as %doc + spec file written in American English (nitpick: s/usefull/useful/) + spec file is legible + source matches upstream: MD5SUM: 2af3fb599635219171c6ae1f3034888a SHA1SUM: d6875295f6df1bec4a6f4ab8f0da54bfb8d97306 glibc-2.3.6.tar.bz2: MD5SUM: bfdce99f82d6dbcb64b7f11c05d6bc96 SHA1SUM: 82d0487419f1bdbf2dee439c344e89d6af47e558 glibc-linuxthreads-2.3.6.tar.bz2: MD5SUM: d4eeda37472666a15cc1f407e9c987a9 SHA1SUM: 10190168bf948556afdfff46f87f9208402d810f + builds on at least one arch (F7 i386 live system) + no known non-working arches, so no ExcludeArch needed + no missing BR + translations are disabled (because they'd conflict with the native versions), so translation/locale guidelines don't apply + no shared libraries, so no ldconfig calls needed + package not relocatable + ownership correct (owns package-specific directories, doesn't own directories owned by another package) + no duplicate files in %files + permissions set properly (%defattr present) + %clean section present and correct + macros used where possible (%configure not used for several reasons, including it playing jokes with --target and upstream recommending building outside the source directory) + no non-code content + no large documentation files, so no -doc package needed + %doc files not required at runtime + no host headers, target headers are OK in this cross-development package + no host static libraries, so no -static package needed + no .pc files, so no Requires: pkgconfig needed + no shared libraries, so .so symlink guidelines don't apply + no -devel package, so the guideline to require the main package in it doesn't apply + no .la files + no GUI programs, so no .desktop file needed + buildroot is deleted at the beginning of %install (same nitpick about mkdir $RPM_BUILD_ROOT as for arm-gp2x-linux-binutils) + all filenames are valid UTF-8 SHOULD Items: + license already included upstream + no translations for description and summary provided by upstream * Skipping mock test. * Skipping the "all architectures" test, I only have i386. + package functions as described: I can at least compile this: int main(void) { return 0; } up to an .o file with the bootstrap compiler. It doesn't link because there's no crt1.o without glibc. + scriptlets are sane + no subpackages other than -devel, so "Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency." is irrelevant + no .pc files, so "placement of .pc files" is irrelevant + no file dependencies APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review