Note: This is a beta release of Red Hat Bugzilla 5.0. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Also email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback here.
Bug 527402 - Review Request: gmock - Google C++ Mocking Framework
Summary: Review Request: gmock - Google C++ Mocking Framework
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Orcan Ogetbil
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
: 539613 (view as bug list)
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2009-10-06 08:36 UTC by Tejas Dinkar
Modified: 2011-02-11 21:26 UTC (History)
8 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2010-11-06 13:02:17 UTC

Attachments (Terms of Use)

System ID Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Bugzilla 676930 None None None Never

Internal Links: 676930

Description Tejas Dinkar 2009-10-06 08:36:42 UTC
Spec URL:
Inspired by jMock, EasyMock, and Hamcrest, and designed with C++'s specifics in mind, 
Google C++ Mocking Framework (or Google Mock for short) is a library for writing and using C++ mock classes. Google Mock:
* lets you create mock classes trivially using simple macros, 
* supports a rich set of matchers and actions, 
* handles unordered, partially ordered, or completely ordered expectations, 
* is extensible by users, and 
* works on Linux, Mac OS X, Windows, Windows Mobile, minGW, and Symbian.

Comment 1 Martin Gieseking 2009-10-07 15:45:24 UTC
A couple of comments:

- you must probably add Requires: gtest >= 1.4.0 because it's not recognized automatically

- is the required gtest version always greater or equal than the version of gmock? If not, I'd suggest to replace BR:gtest-devel >= %{version} by BR:gtest-devel >= 1.4.0

- the lines in the %description section shouldn't exceed 80 characters

- add the version and revision number to the first line of the changelog entry:
  Sun Oct 4 2009 Tejas Dinkar <> - 1.4.0-1

$ rpmlint /home/mgieseki/rpmbuild/RPMS/i586/gmock-*
gmock.i586: E: description-line-too-long Inspired by jMock, EasyMock, and Hamcrest, and designed with C++'s specifics in mind,
gmock.i586: E: description-line-too-long Google C++ Mocking Framework (or Google Mock for short) is a library for writing and using C++ mock classes. Google Mock:
gmock.i586: W: no-version-in-last-changelog
gmock.i586: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/ _exit@GLIBC_2.0
gmock-debuginfo.i586: W: no-version-in-last-changelog
gmock-devel.i586: W: no-version-in-last-changelog
gmock-devel.i586: W: no-documentation
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 5 warnings.

Comment 2 Jason Tibbitts 2009-11-21 02:59:16 UTC
*** Bug 539613 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 3 Terje Røsten 2009-11-23 09:36:19 UTC
You may want to open a bugzilla ticket to get the gtest package in Fedora updated to 1.4, current version in Fedora is gtest 1.3.0-1.20090601svn257.

Comment 4 Rakesh Pandit 2010-01-08 10:56:52 UTC
ping Tejas,

Any updates on this one ? It has been 2-3 months with no update.


Comment 5 Orcan Ogetbil 2010-07-17 17:10:38 UTC
ping 2? Did you give up? Shall we close the bug?

Comment 6 Matt Rogers 2010-08-11 04:10:12 UTC
Spec URL:

Addressed comments in previous review. Here's the output from rpmlint:

gmock.i686: W: no-version-in-last-changelog
gmock.i686: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/ _exit@GLIBC_2.0
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

Not updating to gmock 1.5.0 yet, since it requires gtest 1.5.0 and fedora hasn't updated to that version yet.

Comment 7 Orcan Ogetbil 2010-08-30 06:36:19 UTC
Here is the full review:

* rpmlint says:
   gmock.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US jMock -> j Mock, jock, mock
   gmock.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US matchers -> marchers, matcher, matches
   gmock.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US minGW -> mingy, Mingus, mingle
   gmock.src: W: invalid-url Source0: HTTP Error 404: Not Found
   gmock-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gmock-config
   gmock-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary
   gmock-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
These can be ignored. You can ask upstream about manpages.
   gmock.src: W: no-version-in-last-changelog
   gmock.src:86: W: macro-in-comment %{_datadir}
   gmock.src:86: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
   gmock.src:14: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 14, tab: line 1)
These need to be fixed.
   gmock.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/ _exit@GLIBC_2.2.5
Any explanation for this one?

! It looks like the Group for the main packages should be "System Environment/Libraries"

! The lines
   %dir %{_includedir}/%{name}
could be shortened to

! In the specfile you use "gmock" and "%{name}" interchangably, which breaks marco consistency.

! The standard way of getting rid of rpath is via
   sed -i 's|^hardcode_libdir_flag_spec=.*|hardcode_libdir_flag_spec=""|g' libtool
   sed -i 's|^runpath_var=LD_RUN_PATH|runpath_var=DIE_RPATH_DIE|g' libtool
which will also save you a BR. The use of chrpath is left as a last resort.

? On the devel packages why do we have
   Requires:       automake

* The tests fail via
   g++ -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic -o test/.libs/gmock-actions_test test/gmock-actions_test.o  -L/usr/lib64 -lgtest lib/.libs/  -Wl,--rpath -Wl,/usr/lib64
   /usr/bin/ld: test/gmock-actions_test.o: undefined reference to symbol 'testing::internal::ExpectationBase::RetireAllPreRequisites()'
   /usr/bin/ld: note: 'testing::internal::ExpectationBase::RetireAllPreRequisites()' is defined in DSO /builddir/build/BUILD/gmock-1.4.0/lib/.libs/ so try adding it to the linker command line
   /builddir/build/BUILD/gmock-1.4.0/lib/.libs/ could not read symbols: Invalid operation
   collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
The undefined reference error can be fixed by adding a lib/.libs/ to the compilation line.

Comment 8 Martin Gieseking 2010-08-30 13:37:08 UTC
Since Tejas doesn't seem to be interested in this package any longer, Matt should open a new review request and close this one as a duplicate (because the bug reporter and the package maintainer should be the same person).

Comment 9 Martin Gieseking 2010-08-30 14:01:09 UTC
Also, Matt probably has to be sponsored first, as I can't find his email address in FAS.

Comment 10 Matt Rogers 2010-08-30 14:08:19 UTC
Yes, I recently became aware of both of the above. I'm working on other things at the moment and will file a new review request soon.

Comment 11 Orcan Ogetbil 2010-08-30 15:34:35 UTC
(In reply to comment #8)
> bug reporter and the package maintainer should be the same person).

Any references? I know review request bugs where this was not true. Bug 456353, Bug 444366, ... etc

Comment 12 Martin Gieseking 2010-08-30 15:58:20 UTC
(In reply to comment #11)
> Any references? I know review request bugs where this was not true. Bug 456353,
> Bug 444366, ... etc

Yes, see [1] for example. It was also mentioned here several times (e.g. in bug #566405). Of course, there might be some cases where review requests were "hijacked", but that shouldn't had happened.


Comment 13 Orcan Ogetbil 2010-08-30 16:07:39 UTC
Yes. Sorry, for some reason I thought Tejas responded and gave up with the package explicitly. I probably confused this with some other package. Thanks for the reminder.

Matt, please open a new review request bug, make it block FE-NEEDSPONSOR, and close this bug as a duplicate of the new bug.

Comment 14 Orcan Ogetbil 2010-09-25 23:03:19 UTC
Matt, what is the status on this? Are you still interested?

Comment 15 Matt Rogers 2010-09-28 01:58:39 UTC
yes, still interested. busy with other things ATM. Will file another review request bug when I get around to this again.

Comment 16 Orcan Ogetbil 2010-11-06 06:33:49 UTC
Shall we close this bug, as the original submitter does not seem interested anymore?

Comment 17 Jason Tibbitts 2010-11-06 13:02:17 UTC
Sure looks like there hasn't been any response at all by the original submitter, and it's been over a year.  I'll close it out.  It's too bad that someone else also wanted to submit this package but this one was submitted first.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.