https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884
--- Comment #56 from Brandon Nielsen <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Andy Mender from comment #55) > > Okay, looking into this more (also see comment 11, comment 12, comment 13, > > comment 14), the biggest issue I see is that it should be marked as bundled > > with gdb and binutils, not gcc. I don't think there's actually a bundled > > gnulib in gcc. That's probably why I was confused above. Assuming the > > ChangeLog is correct, I will version it with a date as done in system > > gdb[0]. > > I checked the regular gcc package and yes, it's not there: > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gcc/blob/master/f/gcc.spec > It's bundled with gdb, however: > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gdb/blob/master/f/gdb.spec#_105 > And for some reason this tarball bundles (a different version!) with binutils as well. I'm now versioning both with the last date in the ChangeLog, based on this quote[0] from the packaging guidelines: "A very general rule of thumb is to use the oldest version that seems reasonable as the reason we're doing this is to tell when a library contains issues that have been fixed in newer upstream versions.". > > I'm not sure I understand. In comment 23, comment 24, comment 25, and > > comment 35 it was decided to move everything to the /usr/msp430-elf prefix > > and symlink prefixed binaries as described in the packaging guidelines[1]. > > Why are we now moving things back to unprefixed system %{_libdir}? These > > unprefixed binaries should never come into contact with any non-msp430 > > compiler, and as far as I can tell getting rid of them breaks compatibility > > with how "upsteam" (TI, so, more midstream...) intends the compiler to > > work, which as far as I'm concerned would make this package a little > > pointless. > > Yes, you're right. Apologies for my previous comment. I confused myself. The > way it is right now makes more sense, of course. Let's keep that part as it > is now. Don't worry about it, this has turned into quite the epic. As for the dangling symlink weirdness from comment 53, it seems to be a bug[1]. cc1plus is excluded from msp430-elf-gcc so it doesn't get packaged. But for some reason the debuginfo symlink makes it into both the msp430-elf-gcc and msp430-elf-gcc-c++ debuginfo packages. I'm still looking into what's going on with armhfp. I don't fully understand the s390x issue either, but since that's an alternative architecture it's less of a problem, right? [0] - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bundled_Libraries?rd=Packaging:Bundled_Libraries#Requirement_if_you_bundle [1] - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=878863 -- 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 -- [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]
