[Bug 179040] Review Request: socat
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: socat https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179040 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- 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 179040] Review Request: socat
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: socat https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179040 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-21 19:48 EST --- Everything builds fine and now rpmlint is silent. The issues I had are fixed. 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 179040] Review Request: socat
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: socat https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179040 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-20 02:39 EST --- Thanks for the information! glad to see it builds with mock now. I've fixed the documentation execute bits in the example shellscripts. I added a few more examples that i hadn't noticed were added. New specfile and rpms available at: ftp://ftp.xelerance.com/socat/binaries/fedora/4/SRPMS/socat-1.5.0.0-2.src.rpm ftp://ftp.xelerance.com/socat/binaries/fedora/4/SRPMS/socat.spec Thanks again! -- 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 179040] Review Request: socat
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: socat https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179040 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-19 00:04 EST --- re: the build error, we recently had a user encounter the same thing with socal-1.4.3.1. i don't know if the causes are the same, but thought you might find it helpful in some way. https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=133527 -- 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 179040] Review Request: socat
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: socat https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179040 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-18 23:44 EST --- So all of the problems I see arise from those six executable bits of documentation. A quick chmod should fix them up. * source files match upstream: 84b709de13e236198a4606fb4b80e123 socat-1.5.0.0.tar.bz2 * 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. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * debuginfo package looks complete. X rpmlint is silent. X final provides and requires are sane: socat = 1.5.0.0-1.fc6 = /bin/bash X /bin/sh libcrypto.so.6()(64bit) libncurses.so.5()(64bit) libreadline.so.5()(64bit) libssl.so.6()(64bit) libutil.so.1()(64bit) * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * package is not relocatable. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. X file permissions are appropriate (executable documentation) * 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. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. -- 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 179040] Review Request: socat
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: socat https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179040 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-18 21:32 EST --- This does build fine in mock (x86_64, rawhide). rpmlint says: W: socat doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/socat-1.5.0.0/proxy.sh /bin/bash W: socat doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/socat-1.5.0.0/proxyecho.sh /bin/bash W: socat doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/socat-1.5.0.0/daemon.sh /bin/sh W: socat doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/socat-1.5.0.0/ftp.sh /bin/sh W: socat doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/socat-1.5.0.0/gatherinfo.sh /bin/sh W: socat doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/socat-1.5.0.0/mail.sh /bin/sh Documentation should not be executable. I'll go ahead and work up a full 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 179040] Review Request: socat
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: socat https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179040 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO_REPORTER |ASSIGNED --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-04 12:01 EST --- I have upgraded to socat-1.5.0.0. This now includes the proper configure.in, so that issue is resolved. Can someone test if it builds properly under mock now? ftp://ftp.xelerance.com/socat/binaries/fedora/4/SRPMS/socat-1.5.0.0-1.src.rpm ftp://ftp.xelerance.com/socat/binaries/fedora/4/SRPMS/socat.spec -- 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 179040] Review Request: socat
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: socat https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179040 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |NEEDINFO_REPORTER -- 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 179040] Review Request: socat
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: socat https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179040 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-25 07:54 EST --- Created an attachment (id=129980) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=129980&action=view) FC5/x86_64 failed build log -- 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 179040] Review Request: socat
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: socat https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179040 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-25 07:49 EST --- I'm getting the same error (as the mock build) on FC5/x86_64. -However-, when I try to manually build the source tar.bz2, (configure --prefix=/usr && make -j 8) it builds just fine. -- 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 179040] Review Request: socat
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: socat https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179040 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-19 00:23 EST --- upstream will add configure.in/ac in his next release. I am still investigating why mock builds fail, but my FC4 x86_64 builds fine. -- 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 179040] Review Request: socat
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: socat https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179040 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-15 06:55 EST --- Created an attachment (id=129046) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=129046&action=view) FC5 mock build log for socat-1.4.3.1-1.src.rpm (In reply to comment #12) > Can someone give me a complete log of the build failure mentioned in #4. As I > said, on my X86_64 FC4, it just builds. FC5 mock build log attached. -- 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 179040] Review Request: socat
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: socat https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179040 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-12 16:03 EST --- Can someone give me a complete log of the build failure mentioned in #4. As I said, on my X86_64 FC4, it just builds. I'll contact upstream to ask for inclusion of configure.in/configure/ac -- 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 179040] Review Request: socat
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: socat https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179040 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-12 03:16 EST --- (In reply to comment #9) > Some more packages only put configure.in/configure.ac in their development > (CVS) > tree, and just put the configure script and not the autoconf/automake in. > Sometimes this is done to prevent dependancies on autoconfig/automake. I don't > think it is a big issue for building this package. In addition to Ralf's comments, which I agree with, I'd add that it's normal practice to ship the configure.in/configure.ac and that these do not introduce buildreqs on autotools if the timestamps on the files are correct, i.e. configure is later than the files used to generate it. > permissions on the debug rpm files after install is 644 for files and 755 for > directories. So everyone can read everything. What is exactly going wrong? I was going to look into this but the package (ftp://ftp.xelerance.com/socat/binaries/fedora/4/SRPMS/socat-1.4.3.1-1.src.rpm) doesn't build for me on my FC5 i386 desktop, with the same failure mode as in Comment #4. -- 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 179040] Review Request: socat
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: socat https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179040 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-12 00:16 EST --- (In reply to comment #9) > Some more packages only put configure.in/configure.ac in their development > (CVS) > tree, and just put the configure script and not the autoconf/automake in. Yes, there exist a broken packages and incompetent maintainers. > Sometimes this is done to prevent dependancies on autoconfig/automake. I don't > think it is a big issue for building this package. I consider this as blocker for 2 reasons: 1. LEGAL This configure script is clearly autoconf generated. The package claims to be GPL'ed but ships incomplete sources. I.e. I consider this package not to be GPL compliant and not to be OSI complaint. 2. TECHNICAL 2.1 It is hardly possible to fix/maintain packages with incomplete sources. You might know where the source file might be located, but will the person to adapt this package to FC8 in 2 years still know? 2.2 A package being maintained upstream this way, justifies strong doubts on the code's quality. -- 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 179040] Review Request: socat
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: socat https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179040 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-11 21:58 EST --- Some more packages only put configure.in/configure.ac in their development (CVS) tree, and just put the configure script and not the autoconf/automake in. Sometimes this is done to prevent dependancies on autoconfig/automake. I don't think it is a big issue for building this package. permissions on the debug rpm files after install is 644 for files and 755 for directories. So everyone can read everything. What is exactly going wrong? -- 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 179040] Review Request: socat
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: socat https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179040 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-10 00:10 EST --- * The sources are incomplete. They ship a configure script, but don't ship its sources (configure.in/configure.ac). As this package is GPL'ed, this can be read as violation of the GPL (shipping a crippled package) * Permissions on many source files are broken. This can result into weird side-effects on *debug-info-rpms -- 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 179040] Review Request: socat
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: socat https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179040 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-09 21:56 EST --- so 1.4.3.1 compiles fine for me on x86_64 without any changes. I've updated the spec and source.rpm: Spec Name or Url: ftp://ftp.xelerance.com/socat/binaries/fedora/4/SRPMS/socat.spec SRPM Name or Url: ftp://ftp.xelerance.com/socat/binaries/fedora/4/SRPMS/socat-1.4.3.1-1.src.rpm This is on my desktop x86_64 FC4 system with gcc-4.0.2-8.fc4 and glibc-2.3.90-12 (the glibc might be one from rawhide) checking for equivalent simple type of size_t... 6 /* unsigned long */ checking for equivalent simple type of mode_t... 4 /* unsigned int */ checking for equivalent simple type of pid_t... 3 /* int */ checking for equivalent simple type of uid_t... 4 /* unsigned int */ checking for equivalent simple type of gid_t... 4 /* unsigned int */ checking for equivalent simple type of time_t... 5 /* long */ checking for equivalent simple type of socklen_t... 4 /* unsigned int */ checking for equivalent simple type of off64_t... 5 /* long */ checking for basic type of struct stat.st_dev... 6 /* unsigned long */ checking for basic type of struct stat.st_ino... 6 /* unsigned long */ checking for basic type of struct stat.st_nlink... 6 /* unsigned long */ checking for basic type of struct stat.st_size... 5 /* long */ checking for basic type of struct stat.st_blksize... 5 /* long */ checking for basic type of struct stat.st_blocks... 5 /* long */ checking for basic type of struct stat64.st_dev... 6 /* unsigned long */ checking for basic type of struct stat64.st_ino... 6 /* unsigned long */ checking for basic type of struct stat64.st_nlink... 6 /* unsigned long */ checking for basic type of struct stat64.st_size... 5 /* long */ checking for basic type of struct stat64.st_blksize... 5 /* long */ checking for basic type of struct stat64.st_blocks... 5 /* long */ checking for basic type of struct rlimit.rlim_max... 6 /* unsigned long */ If the package is approved, I can run a build on the fedora x86_64 machine to verify this reported issue further. -- 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 179040] Review Request: socat
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: socat https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179040 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-09 18:11 EST --- When using rpm's configure macro results in: checking for i686-redhat-linux-gnu-gcc... no which in turn puts: checking for equivalent simple type of size_t... 0 /* unknown, taking default */ and checking for basic type of struct stat.st_dev... 0 /* unknown, taking default */ in config.h which causes the error in comment #4. Either changing the two lines in config.h or not passing i686-redhat-linux-gnu-gcc to %configure allows for compiling. -- 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
