[Bug 1451407] Review Request: annobin - a gcc plugin to record extra information in compiled files

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

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1451407

Nick Clifton <nickc@xxxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|needinfo?(nickc@xxxxxxxxxx) |



--- Comment #4 from Nick Clifton <nickc@xxxxxxxxxx> ---
Hi Stephen,

> Apologies for the delay on this. Things got hectic.

No worries - thanks very much for taking the time to run the review.


> tl;dr: work needed (see Issues:)

No surprises there - this is my first contribution. :-)


Anyway, on to the review.  I have created an updated version of the
submissions which addresses most of the points raised:

  Spec URL: https://nickc.fedorapeople.org/annobin.spec
  SRPM URL: https://nickc.fedorapeople.org/annobin-2.0-1.fc26.src.rpm


> 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: gcc gcc-c++
>    See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2

OK, I will remove them.  (Does it matter if they are present ?)

(FYI: I know that the Fedora Review Guidelines webpage contains that link
above,
but the Exceptions_2 entry on the Guidelines page does not actually specify
which
requirements can be omitted from the BuildRequires tag).


> - Some content found to have MIT/X11 (BSD like) licenses. This needs to be in
> the License: field

OK, this is now done.

Note - the fedora-review tool flags quite a few files as "Unknown or
generated".
I assume that I can ignore these.  Also it flags the LICENSE file as having
"*No copyright* GPL (v3)".  I assume that this is OK too.


> - Why are you explicitly excluding the LICENSE and COPYING3 files? Those need
> to be installed with the %license macro

I was basing my annobin.spec file on the spec file used by the odb package.
(This is another gcc plugin, so it seemed like a good idea at the time).  That
package excludes the LICENSE/COPYING3 files and does not have a %license entry,
so I thought that that was the correct thing to do for plugins.

Anyway I have now corrected this issue and added the %license entry.


> - This package does not own some of the directories it requires or alternately
> depend on a package that requires it. In all likelihood, you need to have this
> package `Requires: gcc` to ensure that its directory structure is properly
> owned. I also doubt anyone would want to install this plugin without also
> having gcc available.

True.

> - /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/7/plugin is also owned by gcc-gdb-plugin.
> This is *not* a blocker, but it's worth asking the gcc folks if they should
> just have this owned by some common package if it's going to start being used
> by multiple plugins.

Oh how I wish... :-)  Does Fedora support meta-packages ?  Ie could we have a
gcc-plugin meta package that owns this directory, and maybe a documentation
directory as well.  It could also link somehow to each of the currently
existing
gcc plugin packages.

In a related note, I have been trying to get the gcc folks to take more
responsibility for plugins, and to start treating them as an official part
of the compiler.  But so far I have been blocked each time I try.  Plugins are
seen as being a bit of a mess and not suitable for inclusion in a real compiler
project. :-(


> - Drop the %clean section; it's not required on any supported version of Fedora
> or EPEL anymore

Done.


> [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).

Umm, not sure what needs to be done here.  Could you provide me with a
pointer or two please ?


> [!]: %check is present and all tests pass.

I have not done this (yet) as I am still trying to work out a clean
way to test the plugin.  I hope however that this is not a showstopper.


> annobin.x86_64: W: no-documentation

This should be done.

> annobin.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary built-by.sh
> annobin.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary check-abi.sh
> annobin.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hardened.sh

These are shell scripts.  As such I have tried to make them
self-documenting.  Is there a way to tell rpmlint that this is the
situation ?


Cheers
  Nick

-- 
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 Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Conditions]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux