https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2400586



--- Comment #4 from Benson Muite <[email protected]> ---
(In reply to Jerry James from comment #3)

> 
> Issues:
> =======
> - 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.
>   Note: License file LICENSE is not marked as %license
>   See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
>   guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text
> 
>   There is a %license macro in %files, but it doesn't have any arguments.
> 

Added license files

> - Note this warning from the build log:
> 
> /builddir/build/BUILD/chapel-2.6.0-build/chapel-2.6.0/compiler/resolution/
> preFold.cpp: In function ‘Expr* preFoldPrimOp(CallExpr*)’:
> /builddir/build/BUILD/chapel-2.6.0-build/chapel-2.6.0/compiler/resolution/
> preFold.cpp:2159:26: warning: dereferencing type-punned pointer will break
> strict-aliasing rules [-Wstrict-aliasing]
>  2159 |         (unsigned&)(blk->blockTag) &= ~(unsigned)BLOCK_TYPE_ONLY;
>       |                    ~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~
> 
>   Violations of strict aliasing rules can lead to compiled code that does
>   something other than what the source code seems to say.  You should either
>   add -fno-strict-aliasing to the build flags or, better, fix that code.  I
>   think it should be (untested):
> 
>   blk->blockTag = (BlockTag)((blk->blockTag) & ~BLOCK_TYPE_ONLY);
> 
>   or, to avoid bit operations on signed integers:
> 
>   blk->blockTag = (BlockTag)((unsigned)(blk->blockTag) &
> ~(unsigned)BLOCK_TYPE_ONLY);
>

Added a patch. Pull request to upstream:
https://github.com/chapel-lang/chapel/pull/27877

> - Please remove all .gitignore files from the buildroot; see the
>   version-control-internal-file rpmlint warnings below
> 

Done.

> - There are README files outside of %{_docdir}; should they be moved?
>   /usr/lib64/chapel/2.6/runtime/include/atomics/README
>   /usr/share/chapel/2.6/modules/README
>   /usr/share/chapel/2.6/modules/packages/ImageHelper/stb/README
>  
> /usr/share/chapel/2.6/third-party/chpl-venv/chpldoc-sphinx-project/source/
> modules/README.md
>   /usr/share/chapel/2.6/util/config/README
> 

At the moment have left them where they are.  Maybe can mark them with a %doc
flag?
Can also move them and rename them to eg README-atomics, README-modules,
README-sphinx
and README-config

> - The file README.rst appears in both /usr/share/doc/chapel and
>   /usr/share/doc/chapel/2.6.  Please make it appear in only 1 of the 2.
>

left it in  /usr/share/doc/chapel/2.6 as there are many READMEs.

> - Some files are licensed under both Apache-2.0 and MIT:
>   compiler/adt/vec.cpp
>   compiler/backend/beautify.cpp
>   compiler/include/arg.h
>   compiler/include/beautify.h
>   compiler/include/list.h
>   compiler/include/map.h
>   compiler/include/vec.h
>   compiler/main/arg.cpp
> 
> - Bison-generated files are licensed GPL-3.0-or-later WITH
> Bison-exception-2.2:
>   frontend/lib/parsing/bison-chpl-lib.cpp
>   frontend/lib/parsing/bison-chpl-lib.h
> 
> - The stb_image-devel package is bundled:
>   modules/packages/ImageHelper/stb/stb_image.h
>   Either unbundle it (preferred) or add the necessary Provides.  In the
> latter
>   case, please make the appropriate License addition as well.
> 

Added this information to the spec file.


spec: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/chapel.spec
srpm: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/chapel-2.6.0-1.fc42.src.rpm


-- 
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2400586

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202400586%23c4

-- 
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected]
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Reply via email to