[Bug 225615] Merge Review: binutils
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225615
Jan Kratochvil [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Comment #6 from Jan Kratochvil [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-11 14:14:55 EDT
---
Created an attachment (id=316467)
-- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=316467)
Proposed changes.
Changes attached, scratch build at:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=820452
(In reply to comment #1)
binutils.src:20: W: prereq-use /sbin/install-info
The use of PreReq is deprecated. In the majority of cases, a plain Requires
is enough and the right thing to do. Sometimes Requires(pre), Requires(post),
Requires(preun) and/or Requires(postun) can also be used instead of PreReq.
Fixed:
+Requires(post): /sbin/install-info
+Requires(preun): /sbin/install-info
binutils.src:22: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes gnupro
The specfile contains an unversioned Obsoletes: token, which will match all
older, equal and newer versions of the obsoleted thing. This may cause update
problems, restrict future package/provides naming, and may match something it
was originally not inteded to match -- make the Obsoletes versioned if
possible.
Fixed:
+Obsoletes: gnupro = 1117-1
binutils.src:303: W: macro-in-%changelog _prefix
Not fixed as it was already used with single or double % case-by-case
appropriately. One should see during `rpm -q --changelog'
- fix multilib conflict in /usr/include/bfd.h
and not:
- fix multilib conflict in %{_prefix}/include/bfd.h
binutils.src: W: %ifarch-applied-patch Patch4:
binutils-2.18.50.0.3-ia64-lib64.p
A patch is applied inside an %ifarch block. Patches must be applied
on all architectures and may contain necessary configure and/or code
patch to be effective only on a given arch.
Not a problem.
Not fixed, source tree is already arch-dependent as I was told by Roland
McGrath.
binutils.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot A GNU collection of binary utilities.
Summary ends with a dot.
Fixed.
Why are the .a files not in a -static package? What would be the
ramifications
of correcting this?
libiberty.a should be in fact removed as it should not be used by anyone as
packages using libiberty have it bundled and build it on their own.
libbfd.a and libopcodes.a are not ABI compatible across versions so their
shared (.so) counterparts are not intended for linking with 3rd party
applications - they are provided only for the binaries from this rpm.
3rd party applications link bfd/opcodes statically.
There is nothing left for a possible -static package.
(In reply to comment #2)
I think it would be better to change the perl substitution
to a sed substitution.
Not done, IMO the Perl regex syntax is more flexible and I find the sed syntax
obsoleted nowadays.
the gzipping of info files will be done automatically,
Fixed.
I suggest using
%defattr(-,root,root,-) instead of %defattr(-,root,root)
Changed (default directory attr; not in the scratch build).
Why not use %configure and why use %makeinstall?
Changed for %configure. There was a separate build directory before which I am
not aware how to configure while using %configure. But as I find the separate
build directory more as an inconvenience than advantage and the practical
reasons for it (gasp) no longer exist I changed it for a unified build/source
directory back again and so even using %configure.
(In reply to comment #5)
binutils.src:157: W: configure-without-libdir-spec
A configure script is run without specifying the libdir. configure options
must be augmented with something like --libdir=%{_libdir} whenever the script
supports it.
This is a rpmlint error, --libdir is there but rpmlint did not parse it right
through the %if blocks.
Thanks, if it is fine going to commit it.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225615] Merge Review: binutils
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225615 Jan Kratochvil [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Comment #7 from Jan Kratochvil [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-11 14:17:17 EDT --- IIRC assignee should be the reviewer, not the maintainer, sorry. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225615] Merge Review: binutils
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225615
Jon Ciesla [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-09 08:30:39 EDT ---
evaluating new rawhide srpm.
New in rpmlint on srpm:
binutils.src:157: W: configure-without-libdir-spec
A configure script is run without specifying the libdir. configure options
must be augmented with something like --libdir=%{_libdir} whenever the script
supports it.
Fix.
Above is still present.
rpmlint on rpms: Summary ends with a dot. Fix.
Other issues remain.
Adding CC to current binutils maintainer.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225615] Merge Review: binutils
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: binutils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225615 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-16 11:03 EST --- Any updates? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 225615] Merge Review: binutils
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: binutils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225615 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-07 08:13 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) I think it would be better to change the perl substitution to a sed substitution. I concur. the gzipping of info files will be done automatically, and install-info knows how to install/remove compressed info files. Cool, I didn't know that. I suggest using %defattr(-,root,root,-) instead of %defattr(-,root,root) What would the advantage be? Just curious. Why not use %configure and why use %makeinstall? Looks like DESTDIR is rightly used. Have the concerns from the changelog on line 885 been addressed? I've never had a problem with %configure myself. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 225615] Merge Review: binutils
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: binutils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225615 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora Version|devel |rawhide [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag||fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 10:39 EST --- rpmlint on srpm: binutils.src:20: W: prereq-use /sbin/install-info The use of PreReq is deprecated. In the majority of cases, a plain Requires is enough and the right thing to do. Sometimes Requires(pre), Requires(post), Requires(preun) and/or Requires(postun) can also be used instead of PreReq. Fix. binutils.src:22: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes gnupro The specfile contains an unversioned Obsoletes: token, which will match all older, equal and newer versions of the obsoleted thing. This may cause update problems, restrict future package/provides naming, and may match something it was originally not inteded to match -- make the Obsoletes versioned if possible. Fix if possible. binutils.src:47: W: prereq-use /sbin/install-info The use of PreReq is deprecated. In the majority of cases, a plain Requires is enough and the right thing to do. Sometimes Requires(pre), Requires(post), Requires(preun) and/or Requires(postun) can also be used instead of PreReq. binutils.src:303: W: macro-in-%changelog _prefix Macros are expanded in %changelog too, which can in unfortunate cases lead to the package not building at all, or other subtle unexpected conditions that affect the build. Even when that doesn't happen, the expansion results in possibly rewriting history on subsequent package revisions and generally odd entries eg. in source rpms, which is rarely wanted. Avoid use of macros in %changelog altogether, or use two '%'s to escape them, like '%%foo'. binutils.src:745: W: macro-in-%changelog _prefix Macros are expanded in %changelog too, which can in unfortunate cases lead to the package not building at all, or other subtle unexpected conditions that affect the build. Even when that doesn't happen, the expansion results in possibly rewriting history on subsequent package revisions and generally odd entries eg. in source rpms, which is rarely wanted. Avoid use of macros in %changelog altogether, or use two '%'s to escape them, like '%%foo'. Fix. binutils.src: W: %ifarch-applied-patch Patch4: binutils-2.18.50.0.3-ia64-lib64.p atch A patch is applied inside an %ifarch block. Patches must be applied on all architectures and may contain necessary configure and/or code patch to be effective only on a given arch. Not a problem. binutils.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot A GNU collection of binary utilities. Summary ends with a dot. Fix. rpmlint on rpms is clean other than the above. Why are the .a files not in a -static package? What would be the ramifications of correcting this? Otherwise, looks good, no other blockers. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 225615] Merge Review: binutils
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: binutils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225615 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 17:53 EST --- I think it would be better to change the perl substitution to a sed substitution. the gzipping of info files will be done automatically, and install-info knows how to install/remove compressed info files. I suggest using %defattr(-,root,root,-) instead of %defattr(-,root,root) Why not use %configure and why use %makeinstall? Looks like DESTDIR is rightly used. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 225615] Merge Review: binutils
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: binutils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225615 Bug 225615 depends on bug 223678, which changed state. Bug 223678 Summary: binutils: non-failsafe install-info use in scriptlets https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223678 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||RAWHIDE Status|NEW |CLOSED -- 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 225615] Merge Review: binutils
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: binutils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225615 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||223678 -- 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
