https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2921 Alexandre Moine <nobrakal(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |30 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2921 --- Comment #2 from Alexandre Moine <nobrakal(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; 2013-08-17 13:41:27 CEST --- Hi, Thanks for your reply Antonio. I fix all your bug, see the new srpm: http://download.tuxfamily.org/crearemundum/openmw-0.25.0-1.fc19.src.rpm If you have another bug(S) don't hesitate ;) Alexandre M. Ps: I work on a notebook with a bad connection, so my reply would be long... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2921 --- Comment #4 from Alexandre Moine <nobrakal(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; 2013-08-18 22:47:30 CEST --- Hi, Thank again for your reply. I fix other bug. Sorry for 'mygui-devel' the new package has been tested with mock. The SRPM: http://download.tuxfamily.org/crearemundum/openmw-0.25.0-1.fc19.src.rpm The SPEC: http://ur1.ca/f3px8 (if you want, the file is in the srpm) If you have another bugs don't hesitate. Alexandre Ps: Sorry for bugs, I read the Guidelines five times for my penance ;) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2921 Richard <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |hobbes1069(a)gmail.com --- Comment #6 from Richard <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com&gt; 2013-08-31 14:11:29 CEST --- Some additional comments. 1. Unless they're closely related packages, everything in the BuildRequires section should really be one per line. It's very difficult to read through them like they are. 2. Are you sure you need to BuildRequires: tbb and not tbb-devel? 3. C programs very rarely need to "Requires: ..." anything. Almost all dependencies should be found through soname dependencies and picked up by RPM automatically. Exceptions would be noarch script based packages such as python or possibly dlopen situations... 4. You can optionally use the "%make_install" macro instead of doing the long form... 5. You should have one blank line between changelog entries for legibility. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2921 --- Comment #8 from Richard <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com&gt; 2013-09-02 17:11:57 CEST --- First major problem, there seems to be 3 bundled libraries in the extern folder. Bundled libraries are not allowed. I need to investigate more but most likely they will need to be evaluated and separate review requests created for them (on Fedora if allowed, or here, if not). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2921 --- Comment #10 from Alexandre Moine <nobrakal(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; 2013-09-03 16:28:16 CEST --- Hi, Thank's again for your help. I have updated the srpm with your spec. (Reminder: the Srpm: http://nobrakal.fedorapeople.org/openmw-0.25.0-1.fc19.src.rpm the Spec: http://nobrakal.fedorapeople.org/openmw.spec ) But I don't understand for library. What are the library that you think? Alexandre -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2921 --- Comment #12 from Alexandre Moine <nobrakal(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; 2013-09-03 17:31:02 CEST --- Sorry, I talk about your comment 8. The three bundled librairies. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2921 --- Comment #14 from Alexandre Moine <nobrakal(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; 2013-09-04 15:24:58 CEST --- Hi, Oh, ok, and we need to propose three other packages... I go see that. Thank again for your help ;) Alexandre -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2921 --- Comment #16 from Alexandre Moine <nobrakal(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; 2013-09-13 19:54:45 CEST --- Hi all, Thank you very much richard for you help ;) Meanwhile, I've update my package to the new 0.26.0 version. The SRPM: http://nobrakal.fedorapeople.org/openmw-0.26.0-1.fc19.src.rpm The Spec: http://nobrakal.fedorapeople.org/openmw.spec I go see now for the BuildRequires :) Alexandre -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2921 --- Comment #18 from Alexandre Moine <nobrakal(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; 2013-09-15 09:43:01 CEST --- Hi, Thank you again Richard for your (great) job! I've updated my oackage with your spec (and in dropbox): The SRPM: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/e4fh1mxqr4cad8x/openmw-0.26.0-1.fc19.... The SPEC: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/ahd6osj0c4aazie/openmw.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2921 --- Comment #20 from Alexandre Moine <nobrakal(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; 2013-09-15 20:00:00 CEST --- Hi, I've updated my package. About the /usr/share/openmw/data directory. I don't how openmw work to this point... But, I believe that openmw need a wine install to work. So it's complicate... Alexandre -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2921 --- Comment #22 from Richard <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com&gt; 2013-09-17 20:30:30 CEST --- Ok, I think we're almost there. I have some additional updates on my end but I want to make sure I give you feedback on your last spec file. 1. We need to clarify the license. The provided file says GPLv3 but when I run licensecheck on the sources most it can't identify and the the ones it can seem predominantly BSD. Looking at it, it looks like most of the openmw sources are *UNKNOWN* so I guess they're covered by the GPL3.txt file in the source root. Oics is BSD so we'll probably need to add that and a couple of files in the Bullet dir are Zlib. I'm not a licensing expert but I think we need to change the tag to: License: GPLv3 and MIT and zlib 2. There are two fonts included in the package and I'm not clear on the guidelines for bundled fonts. In looking at every package that bundles fonts, none of them add the OFL licence reference to the package license tag, so I'm going to say that we don't need to either. 3. I've corrected it in my spec, but any time you have a macro in a comment or in the changelog (anywhere you don't expect it to be evaluated) you need to prefix it with an additional %. Otherwise all the comments in your spec file will be evaluated by rpmbuild, which is not what we want. 4. I tweaked the data directory reference in %files. Rpmbuild does not require the trailing slash "/" but it's nice to include it so other people looking at your spec will know you intend to grab the whole directory and not just a file. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/34775202/openmw.spec https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/34775202/openmw.spec.diff -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2921 --- Comment #24 from Richard <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com&gt; 2013-09-18 15:01:38 CEST --- Oops! That might help! https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/34775202/openmw-datapath.patch -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2921 --- Comment #26 from Richard <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com&gt; 2013-09-22 19:43:51 CEST --- Ok, they should be in good shape now... Now we just need to find you a sponsor, as unfortunately I am not one. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2921 --- Comment #28 from Richard <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com&gt; 2013-09-22 20:34:05 CEST --- (In reply to comment #27) Yes, if you're sponsored on Fedora then your are automatically sponsored at RPM Fusion, so if that's the case you can remove the NEEDSPONSORS blocker. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2921 --- Comment #30 from Richard <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com&gt; 2013-09-22 20:56:45 CEST --- Also, I almost forgot, go to https://fas.rpmfusion.org and create an account. You'll need to be added as a RPM Fusion packager, historically that's been handled on the mailing list by requesting it and mentioning your Fedora FAS account name but it's been rather silent on the infrastructure side lately so submitting an infrastructure bug may be the way to go (once you have your account). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2921 Richard <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #32 from Richard <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com&gt; 2013-09-25 21:45:00 CEST --- I wouldn't worry about an infrastructure bug at this point. Below is my full review and here's the items that need to be fixed: 1. Need bundling exception for shiny and oics. Rationale for shiny: Per upstream it is designed to be copied in and is not a stand alone library. https://github.com/scrawl/shiny/blob/master/CMakeLists.txt Rationale for oics: Modified from upstream source. There is no official procedure for obtaining a bundling exception on RPM Fusion so I think this serves as the best guide: http://lists.rpmfusion.org/pipermail/rpmfusion-developers/2012-January/01... You don't need to be nearly as verbose as he is. 2. openmw.src:111: W: macro-in-%changelog %{name} *** Needs to be fixed. *** Only #1 is a blocker but you should fix #2 as well. After get #1 taken care of I can approve the review request and then once the build system is back up you should be good to go. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: openmw : /usr/share/openmw/resources/materials/core.h openmw : /usr/share/openmw/resources/materials/shadows.h openmw : /usr/share/openmw/resources/materials/underwater.h openmw : /usr/share/openmw/resources/materials/watersim_common.h See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages These are shader files that OpenMW needs at runtime. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: 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 %doc. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated", "zlib/libpng". 1046 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/build/openmw/licensecheck.txt [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 92160 bytes in 6 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop- file-validate if there is such a file. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: No %config files under /usr. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. Packaged fonts are for game use only and is consistent with MANY packages in Fedora repositories. [x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. *** Tested x86_64. *** [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1576960 bytes in /usr/share [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: openmw-0.26.0-6.fc21.x86_64.rpm openmw-0.26.0-6.fc21.src.rpm openmw.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Morrowind -> Morrow ind, Morrow-ind, Windrow openmw.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/openmw/resources/materials/shadows.h openmw.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/openmw/resources/materials/watersim_common.h openmw.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/openmw/resources/materials/core.h openmw.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/openmw/resources/materials/underwater.h openmw.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary esmtool openmw.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary omwlauncher openmw.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary opencs openmw.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mwiniimport openmw.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary openmw openmw.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Morrowind -> Morrow ind, Morrow-ind, Windrow openmw.src: W: strange-permission openmw-0.26.0-source.tar.gz 0600L openmw.src:35: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(ocis) openmw.src:111: W: macro-in-%changelog %{name} *** Needs to be fixed. *** openmw.src: W: invalid-url Source0: https://openmw.googlecode.com/files/openmw-0.26.0-source.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found *** Works but curl doesn't like it. *** 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 15 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint openmw openmw.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Morrowind -> Morrow ind, Morrow-ind, Windrow openmw.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/openmw/resources/materials/shadows.h openmw.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/openmw/resources/materials/watersim_common.h openmw.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/openmw/resources/materials/core.h openmw.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/openmw/resources/materials/underwater.h openmw.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary esmtool openmw.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary omwlauncher openmw.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary opencs openmw.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mwiniimport openmw.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary openmw 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- openmw (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): config(openmw) libBulletCollision.so.2.81()(64bit) libBulletDynamics.so.2.81()(64bit) libBulletSoftBody.so.2.81()(64bit) libLinearMath.so.2.81()(64bit) libMyGUI.OgrePlatform.so()(64bit) libMyGUIEngine.so.3()(64bit) libOgreMain.so.1.8.1()(64bit) libQtCore.so.4()(64bit) libQtGui.so.4()(64bit) libQtNetwork.so.4()(64bit) libQtXml.so.4()(64bit) libQtXmlPatterns.so.4()(64bit) libSDL2-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libXt.so.6()(64bit) libavcodec.so.55()(64bit) libavcodec.so.55(LIBAVCODEC_55)(64bit) libavformat.so.55()(64bit) libavformat.so.55(LIBAVFORMAT_55)(64bit) libavutil.so.52()(64bit) libavutil.so.52(LIBAVUTIL_52)(64bit) libboost_date_time.so.1.54.0()(64bit) libboost_filesystem.so.1.54.0()(64bit) libboost_program_options.so.1.54.0()(64bit) libboost_system.so.1.54.0()(64bit) libboost_thread.so.1.54.0()(64bit) libboost_wave.so.1.54.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.0.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libopenal.so.1()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libswscale.so.2()(64bit) libswscale.so.2(LIBSWSCALE_2)(64bit) libtinyxml.so.0()(64bit) libunshield.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- openmw: bundled(ocis) bundled(shiny) *** Need bundling exception for these. *** config(openmw) openmw openmw(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://openmw.googlecode.com/files/openmw-0.26.0-source.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5675c2922fc06775a456a0ddaf302d41f84cb286af4d35141aeaaa1aec59397a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5675c2922fc06775a456a0ddaf302d41f84cb286af4d35141aeaaa1aec59397a Generated by fedora-review 0.5.0 (920221d) last change: 2013-08-30 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -n ./openmw-0.26.0-6.fc19.src.rpm -r --mock-config fedora-rawhide-x86_64-rpmfusion_free Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, SugarActivity, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EPEL5, EXARCH, DISTTAG -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2921 Richard <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|3 |4 --- Comment #33 from Richard <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com&gt; 2013-10-10 15:16:06 CEST --- Ok, #1 is taken care of: https://lists.rpmfusion.org/pipermail/rpmfusion-developers/2013-October/0... Just make sure you take care of #2! *** APPROVED *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2921 Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|33 | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.