https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 --- Comment #12 from Brandon Nielsen <nielsenb@xxxxxxxxxxx> --- New spec URL: https://bitbucket.org/nielsenb/mspgcc-fedora/raw/d0f1b3ccb1611c8adf5aacf0f63e24444681d9d5/msp430-elf-toolchain.spec New SRPM URL: https://bitbucket.org/nielsenb/mspgcc-fedora/downloads/msp430-elf-toolchain-5.0.0.0-1.src.rpm (In reply to Elliott Sales de Andrade from comment #11) > Bit weird that it's version 5.0.0, but 6.2.1 of gcc (and presumably some > other > version of the other tools). Not sure what should be done about that. > I agree, their versioning scheme is incredibly confusing. Doubly so since they changed from the Red Hat developed SDK to the new SOMNIUM one, some version numbers have actually gone backwards. Since we haven't had the packages in Fedora, it hasn't been an issue, but it did break my Copr for awhile until I noticed. I'm not really positive which upstream we should use version numbers for, upstream's upstream (GCC), or just upstream (SOMNIUM). > Minor things out of the spec: Group tag and %defattr are no longer needed; > g++ stuff should be its own subpackage, no? > Got rid of the group tag and %defattr. g++ stuff was included in the now dead msp430-gcc, I started out trying to match that as much as possible. I'm open to changing it. Do you know of an example I could look at? > Some issues I see out of fedora-review: > > - Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. > Note: Bundled gnulib but no Provides: bundled(gnulib) > See: > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging: > No_Bundled_Libraries#Requirement_if_you_bundle > Fixed (I think). The bundled(gnulib) needs to be versioned, but which version do I specify? > - Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) > Note: msp430-elf-gcc : > /usr/lib64/gcc/msp430-elf/6.2.1/plugin/libcc1plugin.la msp430-elf-gcc : > /usr/libexec/gcc/msp430-elf/6.2.1/liblto_plugin.la msp430-elf-gcc : > /usr/msp430-elf/lib/430/libssp.la msp430-elf-gcc : > /usr/msp430-elf/lib/430/libssp_nonshared.la msp430-elf-gcc : > /usr/msp430-elf/lib/430/libstdc++.la msp430-elf-gcc : > /usr/msp430-elf/lib/430/libsupc++.la msp430-elf-gcc : > /usr/msp430-elf/lib/large/libssp.la msp430-elf-gcc : > /usr/msp430-elf/lib/large/libssp_nonshared.la msp430-elf-gcc : > /usr/msp430-elf/lib/large/libstdc++.la msp430-elf-gcc : > /usr/msp430-elf/lib/large/libsupc++.la msp430-elf-gcc : > /usr/msp430-elf/lib/libssp.la msp430-elf-gcc : > /usr/msp430-elf/lib/libssp_nonshared.la msp430-elf-gcc : > /usr/msp430-elf/lib/libstdc++.la msp430-elf-gcc : > /usr/msp430-elf/lib/libsupc++.la > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#StaticLibraries > Fixed. > - SHOULD items: Generic: > [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. > [!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag > Note: Could not download Source0: http://software- > > dl.ti.com/msp430/msp430_public_sw/mcu/msp430/MSPGCC/latest/exports/msp430- > gcc-6.2.1 > .16_source-full.tar.bz2 > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags > I now use parallel make, the download link works for me, so not sure what to make of that. > These match gcc, so probably fine, but I did not check every file: > - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. > - Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if > present. > Note: Package has .a files: msp430-elf-gcc. Illegal package name: > msp430-elf-gcc. Does not provide -static: msp430-elf-gcc. > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#StaticLibraries > Anything specific I should do to address these? I'm particular worried about the illegal package name, especially since we've already looked at naming once. > Possibly relevant things from rpmlint: > msp430-elf-toolchain-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources > msp430-elf-gcc.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided msp430-gcc > msp430-elf-toolchain.src:42: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes msp430-gcc > I don't see the debuginfo-without-sources warning on my system. msp430-gcc isn't packaged in Fedora 26, and I used an unversioned obsolete since this supersedes msp430-gcc in every way. -- 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
