https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834747

Julian Leyh julian@vgai.de changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834747

Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |lemenkov@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |lemenkov@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?

--- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com --- I'll review it (and I'll sponsor you).

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834747

--- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com --- First of all I really don't like the package's name. Initially I thought it's about Global Positioning Systems and probably others could be mistaken as well.

Could you please rename it? For example into gnat-programming-studio (to be honest, I really don't know much about a typical Ada workflow and how you are (Ada developers) usually refer to the tools you're using so keep in mind this while taking my advices).

Otherwise the package looks quite good (as it should be assuming your package experience so far) except some minor things (which I am not fully aware of, so I'm going to cast the reat of Fedora Ada SIG into this ticket) and here is my formal

REVIEW:

Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable

- rpmlint is NOT silent. Except bogus messages aout spelling mistakes, could you please explain the rest? I'm especially concerned about rpath,, executable-stack and zero-length files.

sulaco ~: rpmlint ~/Desktop/gps-* gps.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US customizable -> customization gps.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US customizations -> customization, customization's, customization s gps.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US customizable -> customization gps.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US customizations -> customization, customization's, customization s gps.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/gps ['/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.7.0/adalib/', '/usr/lib64', '/usr/lib', '$ORIGIN/../../templates_parser/.build/native/release/relocatable/lib/', '/usr/lib64/xmlada/relocatable/', '$ORIGIN/../../gnatlib/src/lib/gtk/relocatable/', '$ORIGIN/../../gnatlib/src/lib/python/relocatable/', '$ORIGIN/../../gnatlib/src/lib/gnatcoll/relocatable/', '/usr/lib64/'] gps.x86_64: W: executable-stack /usr/bin/gps gps.x86_64: W: no-documentation gps.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/gps/examples/tutorial/projects/prj1/src1.adb gps.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/gps/examples/language/language_custom.h gps.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/gps/examples/demo/matrix_handling/matrix_utils.c gps.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/gps/examples/remote/my_ssh 0644L /bin/sh gps.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/gps/examples/demo/projects/prj4/src4.adb gps.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/gps/examples/demo/projects/prj3/src3.adb gps.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/gps/examples/language/gprcustom.c gps.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/gps/examples/tutorial/projects/prj4/src4.adb gps.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/gps/examples/demo/projects/prj1/src1.adb gps.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/gps/templates/aws_web_server_blocks/js/aws_kernel.tjs gps.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/gps/examples/tutorial/projects/prj3/src3.adb gps.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/gps/examples/demo/projects/prj2/src2.adb gps.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/gps/examples/demo/matrix_handling/matrix.c gps.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/gps/examples/demo/matrix_handling/matrix.h gps.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/gps/examples/tutorial/projects/prj2/src2.adb gps.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gps 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 11 errors, 12 warnings. sulaco ~:

+/- The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. However I've made some advices to the packager. See above. + The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. + The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines. + The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (GPLv2 or later as stated in the sources).

-The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included in %doc so it MUST be marked as %doc in the %files section. Please do.

+ The spec file is written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible. + The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL.

sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum gps-5.0.1-gpl-src.tgz* 008a04eac17088144d25532bdad933b80c8198ac40b3aa67d8e3df4268f0b9ae gps-5.0.1-gpl-src.tgz 008a04eac17088144d25532bdad933b80c8198ac40b3aa67d8e3df4268f0b9ae gps-5.0.1-gpl-src.tgz.1 sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES:

+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. 0 No need to handle locales. 0 No shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's default paths. + The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries. 0 The package is not designed to be relocatable. + The package owns all directories that it creates. + The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. + Permissions on files are set properly. 0 The package DOESN'T have a %clean section, so it won't build cleanly on systems with old rpm (EL-4 and EL-5, not sure about EL-6). Beware. + The package consistently uses macros. + The package contains code, or permissible content. + Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. 0 No C/C++ header files. 0 No static libraries. 0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files. 0 The package doesn't contain library files without a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so). 0 No devel sub-package. + The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.

- The package includes a %{name}.desktop file, and this file does not installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section so please use desktop-file-validate for that.

+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. 0 At the beginning of %install, the package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) so it won't build cleanly on systems with old rpm (EL-4 and EL-5, not sure about EL-6). Beware. + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.

So here is a TODO list:

* Lets discuss naming scheme. * Explain some rpmlint messages. * Fedora Ada SIG members, could you please take a look at the build log:

http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/9270/4189270/build.log

Are these gcc arguments are valid Fedora gcc arguments for Ada or not? In case we do have them.

* Add licensing info to the main package. * Run desktop-file-validate within the %install section.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834747

--- Comment #6 from Björn Persson bjorn@xn--rombobjrn-67a.se --- How would a virtual Bugzilla account work? Would bugs filed against a package be assigned to that account instead of the maintainer of the package? Would I be expected to log in to that account instead of my own?

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834747

--- Comment #8 from Björn Persson bjorn@xn--rombobjrn-67a.se --- (In reply to comment #4)

First of all I really don't like the package's name. Initially I thought it's about Global Positioning Systems and probably others could be mistaken as well.

Could you please rename it? For example into gnat-programming-studio (to be honest, I really don't know much about a typical Ada workflow and how you are (Ada developers) usually refer to the tools you're using so keep in mind this while taking my advices).

I believe users typically call it GPS. I see the potential for confusion, but I would like "yum install gps" to install this package. (Could that be achieved with "Provides: gps"?) At the very least it should turn up when someone does "yum search gps".

• rpmlint is NOT silent. Except bogus messages aout spelling mistakes, could

you please explain the rest? I'm especially concerned about rpath,, executable-stack and zero-length files.

Let's get the parameters right first and then see if there are any runpaths left.

As noted on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ada executable stack is expected because GNAT uses trampolines for pointers to nested functions.

• The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.

There's something that looks like a copy of Gnatcoll in there. Gnatcoll is already packaged. Is it possible to get GPS to use that?

I also found a copy of Templates Parser. Templates Parser is also included in AWS, which is under review in bug 810676. Templates Parser was once distributed as a standalone library, but since it was taken over by Adacore it has only been distributed inside other projects as far as I can find out. None the less it still has its own build system and its own manual. I think Templates Parser needs to be broken out into a subpackage built from either the AWS or the GPS source package (but named templates-parser, not gps-templates-parser). I'm not sure which is best, but I think the risk of circular dependencies may be smaller if it's built from the GPS source.

Adacore bundle libraries a lot. There could be more that I haven't found.

0 The package DOESN'T have a %clean section, so it won't build cleanly on systems with old rpm (EL-4 and EL-5, not sure about EL-6). Beware.

0 At the beginning of %install, the package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) so it won't build cleanly on systems with old rpm (EL-4 and EL-5, not sure about EL-6). Beware.

EL-6 doesn't need those. We don't have any other Ada packages in EL-4 or EL-5.

Are these gcc arguments are valid Fedora gcc arguments for Ada or not? In case we do have them.

No, all the standard compiler and linker flags are missing. The spec file does define GNAT_OPTFLAGS but this doesn't seem to have the intended effect. Maybe try overriding the Make variable on the command line instead?

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834747

--- Comment #10 from Björn Persson bjorn@xn--rombobjrn-67a.se --- (In reply to comment #7)

Would this mean renaming the /usr/share/gps directory, too?

Just so we're all aware of the implications: If /usr/share/gps is renamed, then we'll have to patch the makefiles of various libraries that want to install files in /usr/share/gps/plug-ins. I checked GTKada, XMLada and Gnatcoll, and the directory name "gps" is hard-coded in all of them.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834747

Pavel Zhukov pavel@zhukoff.net changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |810676

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834747

Julian Leyh julian@vgai.de changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |836014

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834747

Julian Leyh julian@vgai.de changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|810676 |

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834747

Pavel Zhukov pzhukov@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|712332 |201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW)

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834747

--- Comment #15 from Pavel Zhukov pzhukov@redhat.com --- You can use this one: http://vgai.de/fedora/2012-06-23/gps-5.0.1-1.fc17.src.rpm

But I'm going to write new gpr files (please see AWS rpm for example) because original gprs contain a lot of crosslinks to bundled libraries, hard-coded compilation flags etc.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834747

Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Resolution|NOTABUG |--- Keywords| |Reopened

--- Comment #16 from Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com --- (sorry a mistake)

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834747

Julian Leyh julian@vgai.de changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(julian@vgai.de) |