[Bug 194011] Review Request: curry - MÃ ¼nster Curry compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: curry - Münster Curry compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194011 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 10:23 EST --- Adding back in several comments that were lost in the crash: --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-09 03:21 EST --- I remember reading that shared libraries with ghc were either not possible or problematic, probably this applies to curry too. In any case, the only point I would really consider is splitting out the _g library. It would be possible too patch cyc and cymake to check for the library (when invoked using --debug) and bail out with an error when it is not present. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194011] Review Request: curry - MÃ ¼nster Curry compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: curry - Münster Curry compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194011 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 10:24 EST --- --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-09 10:56 EST --- I split off a curry-debugger package which only contains libcurry_g.a I patche cyc so that when invoked with --debug with the debugger package installed, it will give an error and a hint that the curry-debugger package should be installed. http://math.ifi.unizh.ch/fedora/5/i386/SRPMS.gemi/curry-0.9.10-2.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194011] Review Request: curry - MÃ ¼nster Curry compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: curry - Münster Curry compiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194011
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 10:25 EST ---
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 14:41 EST ---
Hmmm. You shouldn't use PreReq:; use Requires: instead. This solves the
following:
W: curry prereq-use curry = %{version}-%{release}
Other than that I'm happy with the package. An additional couple of ignorable
rpmlint warnings popped up for the -debugger package:
W: curry-debugger no-documentation
W: curry-debugger devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/curry/libcurry_g.a
but these are no big deal.
Review:
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is correct.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible. License text included in package.
* source files match upstream:
ae56a087dd6e174cc865e701657876a0 curry-0.9.10.tar.gz
ae56a087dd6e174cc865e701657876a0 curry-0.9.10.tar.gz-srpm
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
O rpmlint has some ignorable complaints.
* final provides and requires are sane:
curry-0.9.10-2.fc6.x86_64.rpm
curry = 0.9.10-2.fc6
=
/bin/sh
gcc
libgmp.so.3()(64bit)
curry-debugger-0.9.10-2.fc6.x86_64.rpm
curry-debugger = 0.9.10-2.fc6
=
curry = 0.9.10-2.fc6
* no shared libraries are present.
* package is not relocatable.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.
* no scriptlets present.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
O plenty of headers, but this is a compiler.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no libtool .la droppings.
O static libraries, but this is a compiler and there's no reasonable way to
eliminate them.
* not a GUI app.
APPROVED
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194011] Review Request: curry - MÃ ¼nster Curry compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: curry - Münster Curry compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194011 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 10:27 EST --- --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 15:16 EST --- Re: useless debuginfo: from the install-dir target in Makefile.in: $(INSTALL_PROGRAM) -s cycc $(DESTDIR)$(libdir)/curry $(INSTALL_PROGRAM) -s cymk $(DESTDIR)$(libdir)/curry $(INSTALL_PROGRAM) -s newer $(DESTDIR)$(libdir)/curry Those -s's look suspicious. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194011] Review Request: curry - MÃ ¼nster Curry compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: curry - Münster Curry compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194011 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 10:28 EST --- --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 15:30 EST --- (In reply to comment #11) Re: useless debuginfo: from the install-dir target in Makefile.in: $(INSTALL_PROGRAM) -s cycc $(DESTDIR)$(libdir)/curry $(INSTALL_PROGRAM) -s cymk $(DESTDIR)$(libdir)/curry $(INSTALL_PROGRAM) -s newer $(DESTDIR)$(libdir)/curry Those -s's look suspicious. Yep, I am patching them away. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194011] Review Request: curry - MÃ ¼nster Curry compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: curry - Münster Curry compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194011 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 10:29 EST --- --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 16:25 EST --- I reverted to the non-split version and added a patch to disable stripping: http://math.ifi.unizh.ch/fedora/5/i386/SRPMS.gemi/curry-0.9.10-2.src.rpm However, I doubt that that debuginfo package is really useful, after all it is written mostly in Haskell, only the runtime library is C. There are no C files in the debuginfo package. There are only .debug versions of the binaries. Should I still import? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194011] Review Request: curry - MÃ ¼nster Curry compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: curry - Münster Curry compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194011 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 10:30 EST --- --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 17:18 EST --- I think it's fine as is; at least now you can install the -debuginfo package and get symbols if the compiler coredumps. (You might argue that nobody would bother, but then we'd just turn off debuginfo generation on most other packages as well.) I think it's fine for you to go ahead and import at this point. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194011] Review Request: curry - MÃ ¼nster Curry compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: curry - Münster Curry compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194011 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-11 13:09 EST --- Built on FC4, FC5 and FC6. Added entry in owners.list file. Thanks again for the review! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194011] Review Request: curry - MÃ ¼nster Curry compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: curry - Münster Curry compiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194011
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 14:41 EST ---
Hmmm. You shouldn't use PreReq:; use Requires: instead. This solves the
following:
W: curry prereq-use curry = %{version}-%{release}
Other than that I'm happy with the package. An additional couple of ignorable
rpmlint warnings popped up for the -debugger package:
W: curry-debugger no-documentation
W: curry-debugger devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/curry/libcurry_g.a
but these are no big deal.
Review:
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is correct.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible. License text included in package.
* source files match upstream:
ae56a087dd6e174cc865e701657876a0 curry-0.9.10.tar.gz
ae56a087dd6e174cc865e701657876a0 curry-0.9.10.tar.gz-srpm
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
O rpmlint has some ignorable complaints.
* final provides and requires are sane:
curry-0.9.10-2.fc6.x86_64.rpm
curry = 0.9.10-2.fc6
=
/bin/sh
gcc
libgmp.so.3()(64bit)
curry-debugger-0.9.10-2.fc6.x86_64.rpm
curry-debugger = 0.9.10-2.fc6
=
curry = 0.9.10-2.fc6
* no shared libraries are present.
* package is not relocatable.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.
* no scriptlets present.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
O plenty of headers, but this is a compiler.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no libtool .la droppings.
O static libraries, but this is a compiler and there's no reasonable way to
eliminate them.
* not a GUI app.
APPROVED
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194011] Review Request: curry - MÃ ¼nster Curry compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: curry - Münster Curry compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194011 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 14:47 EST --- Oops, I just noticed that the debuginfo package came out empty. I don't see anything being stripped and the compiler is being called with -g so I'm not sure what's up here. Perhaps it's best to just disable the -debuginfo package generation. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194011] Review Request: curry - MÃ ¼nster Curry compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: curry - Münster Curry compiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194011
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 15:14 EST ---
(In reply to comment #8)
Hmmm. You shouldn't use PreReq:; use Requires: instead. This solves the
following:
W: curry prereq-use curry = %{version}-%{release}
Ah yes, I tried this to so that uninstalling curry and curry-debugger
first uninstalls curry-debugger, so that the /usr/lib/curry directory
is not left behind. This didn't work out and I simply made curry-debugger
also own /usr/lib/curry.
However after giving some thought to the package splitting, I would
rather not split it after all. Remember, this is a development system
with an integrated debugger. A compiled binary doesn't need any runtime
library anymore, therefore the curry package isn't needed anymore either.
I will however accept if your insist on it.
APPROVED
(In reply to comment #9)
Oops, I just noticed that the debuginfo package came out empty. I don't see
anything being stripped and the compiler is being called with -g so I'm not
sure
what's up here. Perhaps it's best to just disable the -debuginfo package
generation.
I will try to find what's happening.
How is it disabled?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194011] Review Request: curry - MÃ ¼nster Curry compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: curry - Münster Curry compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194011 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 15:16 EST --- Re: useless debuginfo: from the install-dir target in Makefile.in: $(INSTALL_PROGRAM) -s cycc $(DESTDIR)$(libdir)/curry $(INSTALL_PROGRAM) -s cymk $(DESTDIR)$(libdir)/curry $(INSTALL_PROGRAM) -s newer $(DESTDIR)$(libdir)/curry Those -s's look suspicious. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194011] Review Request: curry - MÃ ¼nster Curry compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: curry - Münster Curry compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194011 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 15:30 EST --- (In reply to comment #11) Re: useless debuginfo: from the install-dir target in Makefile.in: $(INSTALL_PROGRAM) -s cycc $(DESTDIR)$(libdir)/curry $(INSTALL_PROGRAM) -s cymk $(DESTDIR)$(libdir)/curry $(INSTALL_PROGRAM) -s newer $(DESTDIR)$(libdir)/curry Those -s's look suspicious. Yep, I am patching them away. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194011] Review Request: curry - MÃ ¼nster Curry compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: curry - Münster Curry compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194011 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 15:36 EST --- (In reply to comment #10) Ah yes, I tried this to so that uninstalling curry and curry-debugger first uninstalls curry-debugger, so that the /usr/lib/curry directory is not left behind. This didn't work out and I simply made curry-debugger also own /usr/lib/curry. This is an rpm bug; there's a ticket open on it somewhere but there are so many rpm bugz that I can't find it right now. However after giving some thought to the package splitting, I would rather not split it after all. I don't really think it is necessary; it was just one of the ideas I tossed out. It's not the static+debug situation that Ralf mentioned earlier, it's just a library with additional stuff linked in. Remember, this is a development system with an integrated debugger. A compiled binary doesn't need any runtime library anymore, therefore the curry package isn't needed anymore either. I will however accept if your insist on it. APPROVED (In reply to comment #9) Oops, I just noticed that the debuginfo package came out empty. I don't see anything being stripped and the compiler is being called with -g so I'm not sure what's up here. Perhaps it's best to just disable the -debuginfo package generation. I will try to find what's happening. How is it disabled? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194011] Review Request: curry - MÃ ¼nster Curry compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: curry - Münster Curry compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194011 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-10 17:18 EST --- I think it's fine as is; at least now you can install the -debuginfo package and get symbols if the compiler coredumps. (You might argue that nobody would bother, but then we'd just turn off debuginfo generation on most other packages as well.) I think it's fine for you to go ahead and import at this point. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194011] Review Request: curry - MÃ ¼nster Curry compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: curry - Münster Curry compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194011 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-09 03:21 EST --- I remember reading that shared libraries with ghc were either not possible or problematic, probably this applies to curry too. In any case, the only point I would really consider is splitting out the _g library. It would be possible too patch cyc and cymake to check for the library (when invoked using --debug) and bail out with an error when it is not present. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194011] Review Request: curry - MÃ ¼nster Curry compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: curry - Münster Curry compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194011 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-09 10:56 EST --- I split off a curry-debugger package which only contains libcurry_g.a I patche cyc so that when invoked with --debug with the debugger package installed, it will give an error and a hint that the curry-debugger package should be installed. http://math.ifi.unizh.ch/fedora/5/i386/SRPMS.gemi/curry-0.9.10-2.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194011] Review Request: curry - MÃ ¼nster Curry compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: curry - Münster Curry compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194011 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 20:46 EST --- I've been thinking about this a bit and took a look at a couple of things. Obviously the best possible solution would be for the curry compiler to dynamically link the executables it creates, and then package the runtime separately. The question is, how feasible is this? I don't think anything prevents the runtime from being made into a .so; it would just be a few lines in runtime/Makefile.in. And the curry compiler (cyc) is really just a shell script that turns the curry source into C, then calls GCC to compile it and then links it: $exec $CC $debug $ccopts $ldopts /tmp/cyc$$.c $linkfiles $libs $dbglib -lcurry @LDFLAGS@ @LIBS@ So it may be possible to actually make things work without an insane amount of effort. However, assuming that we can't achieve curry packaging Nirvana, is the current package behavior acceptable? Obviously we dislike static libraries and static linking, but if there's no other way to make it work then we either have to package the compiler as is or not package it at all. The standard argument against static linking is one of security: you have to fix every package that linked in the bad library individually. The curry compiler is mostly of research interest and isn't going to be used to produce a large number of security-sensitive programs, so it's probably reasonable to discount the security argument. What remains is Ralf's comment about splitting out the _g library. It is large and not a terrible idea, but there's the issue of cymake failing. However, cymake is just a shell script which calls cyc; it should be easy to patch the appropriate one to check for the existence of the debug library and simply bail with a useful error if it doesn't exist. So the real issue is how much work is involved to make things a bit cleaner. What do you think? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194011] Review Request: curry - MÃ ¼nster Curry compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: curry - Münster Curry compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194011 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-07 02:17 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) (In reply to comment #1) I do see this massive static library: 19435080 Jun 6 13:23 /usr/lib64/curry/libcurry_g.a that I suppose is simply linked to every application. Now, static libs are really strongly disliked in Extras, so I'm going to need to ask for some guidance here. This is in fact similar to ghc package itself, which contains a lot of static libraries. I think, therefore, it is ok. Without having looked into the details lib*_g.a indicates a static-debug variant of a library. This is problematic twice: static + debug. If static isn't avoidable (This often is the case for exotic compilers), then package it ... debug is a different issue: Such libaries are rarely needed by anybody and often are of doubtful benefits. One would have to check for for what they are really needed and if shipping a non-debug variant isn't sufficient. In most cases a -O2 -g compiled non-debug variant + debug-info-rpms render debug variants superfluous. But with exotic compilers, one never knows. So I recommend to check for * if it is really required and if a non-debug variant + debuginfos are sufficient. * if existance of this file is mandatory for the toolchain. If not, I'd recommend removing it, or packaging it into a separate *-debug package (cf. how gcc and glibc are being packaged). If yes, if this library can't be replaced with a set of lib*_g.a - lib*.a symlinks (This approach is used by newlib. It supports a *_g.a libs but by default doesn't build it, and therefore needs these links) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194011] Review Request: curry - MÃ ¼nster Curry compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: curry - Münster Curry compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194011 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-07 04:26 EST --- (In reply to comment #3) debug is a different issue: Such libaries are rarely needed by anybody and often are of doubtful benefits. One would have to check for for what they are really needed and if shipping a non-debug variant isn't sufficient. In most cases a -O2 -g compiled non-debug variant + debug-info-rpms render debug variants superfluous. But with exotic compilers, one never knows. I looked into this a little deeper: libcurry.a is the normal runtime library, that is linked into every standalone program. libcurry_g.a is NOT the same library compiled using gcc -g, but contains the code for the declarative debugger of curry (this is similar to the standard debugger in Prolog). If you compile using cyc --debug this library is linked in addition to libcurry.a. I could imagine putting this library into a separate package curry-debugger or curry-debug. However, then cyc --debug fails. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194011] Review Request: curry - MÃ ¼nster Curry compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: curry - Münster Curry compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194011 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194011] Review Request: curry - MÃ ¼nster Curry compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: curry - Münster Curry compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194011 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-06 14:53 EST --- The license seems to be essentially identical to the 3-clause BSD license, so I think License: BSD is appropriate here. I had build failures when using parallel make; everything works fine after disabling parallel make. Sure takes a while to build, though. rpmlint warnings: W: curry invalid-license Freely distributable and many of these: W: curry devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/curry/files.h Since this is a compiler, header files are acceptable in the base package. I wonder, however, if there are libraries or something that applications compiled by this compiler will need and if it would be reasonable to split those out to a separate -libs or -runtime subpackage. I do see this massive static library: 19435080 Jun 6 13:23 /usr/lib64/curry/libcurry_g.a that I suppose is simply linked to every application. Now, static libs are really strongly disliked in Extras, so I'm going to need to ask for some guidance here. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 194011] Review Request: curry - MÃ ¼nster Curry compiler
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: curry - Münster Curry compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194011 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-06 15:12 EST --- (In reply to comment #1) The license seems to be essentially identical to the 3-clause BSD license, so I think License: BSD is appropriate here. Ok. I had build failures when using parallel make; everything works fine after disabling parallel make. Sure takes a while to build, though. Ok. W: curry devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/curry/files.h Since this is a compiler, header files are acceptable in the base package. I wonder, however, if there are libraries or something that applications compiled by this compiler will need and if it would be reasonable to split those out to a separate -libs or -runtime subpackage. I do see this massive static library: 19435080 Jun 6 13:23 /usr/lib64/curry/libcurry_g.a that I suppose is simply linked to every application. Now, static libs are really strongly disliked in Extras, so I'm going to need to ask for some guidance here. This is in fact similar to ghc package itself, which contains a lot of static libraries. I think, therefore, it is ok. However you can ask the maintainer of ghc in Extras, Jens Petersen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]), about this. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
