[Bug 190991] Review Request: libpar2
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: libpar2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190991 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 09:55 EST --- Some of the discoveries in this ticket are wrong and misleading. The biggest problem with config.h (regardless of its contents!) is global namespace pollution when installing the file into a location that takes precedence in the search-path list. The observation that auto-generated headers are wrong/bad in general, is wrong. Surely there are valid scenarios in which it makes sense to re-use generated headers in a public API. Finally, I fail to see where libsigc++-2.0 and gtkmm-2.4 are affected by 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
[Bug 190991] Review Request: libpar2
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: libpar2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190991 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 10:04 EST --- (In reply to comment #11) The observation that auto-generated headers are wrong/bad in general, is wrong. Surely there are valid scenarios in which it makes sense to re-use generated headers in a public API. Then I have to correct you: Installing files generated by autoheader is always wrong. They are not *designed* for this purpose. Any program doing so is abusing them. -- 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 190991] Review Request: libpar2
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: libpar2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190991 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 10:33 EST --- auto-generated headers != using autoheader -- 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 190991] Review Request: libpar2
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: libpar2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190991 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-06 10:38 EST --- (In reply to comment #13) auto-generated headers != using autoheader Exactly. -- 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 190991] Review Request: libpar2
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: libpar2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190991 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-08 05:00 EST --- Some comments: 1. Minor issues: 1.1 # rpmlint *RPMS/libpar*.rpm E: libpar2-debuginfo script-without-shellbang /usr/src/debug/libpar2-0.2/galois.h E: libpar2-debuginfo script-without-shellbang /usr/src/debug/libpar2-0.2/par2repairersourcefile.cpp E: libpar2-debuginfo script-without-shellbang /usr/src/debug/libpar2-0.2/par2repairer.cpp E: libpar2-debuginfo script-without-shellbang /usr/src/debug/libpar2-0.2/par2repairersourcefile.h E: libpar2-debuginfo script-without-shellbang /usr/src/debug/libpar2-0.2/par1repairer.cpp E: libpar2-devel only-non-binary-in-usr-lib Most of these probably are caused by bogus permissions on source files. 1.2 Empty directory /usr/lib/libpar2 Is this package supposed to take plugins, there? 2. Major: This package's configuration (configure.ac/Makefile.am) is bugged: - configure.ac uses PKG_CHECK_MODULES(..sigc++..) but doesn't propagate the results to Makefile.am. Instead the Makefile explicitly links against -lstdc++. This violates g++'s working principles. Linking against -lstdc++ is a g++ internal detail. 3. Severe (Blocker): The package installs an autoheader (config.h) to a public directory (/usr/lib/libpar2/include/config.h). This file's contents will clash with other package's config headers and is a severe (must fix) design flaw of this package. A package must not install an autoheader. -- 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 190991] Review Request: libpar2
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: libpar2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190991
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-08 10:18 EST ---
Update:
Spec URL: http://www.di.ens.fr/~rineau/Fedora/libpar2.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.di.ens.fr/~rineau/Fedora/libpar2-0.2-2.src.rpm
Thank you for your comments, Ralf.
(In reply to comment #2)
1. Minor issues:
1.1
# rpmlint *RPMS/libpar*.rpm
E: libpar2-debuginfo script-without-shellbang
I fixed these one. I forgot to apply rpmlint to the debuginfo package.
E: libpar2-devel only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
I saw this one. I thought it is related to %{_libdir}/libpar2/include/config.h
See my answer to your point 3.
Most of these probably are caused by bogus permissions on source files.
1.2 Empty directory
/usr/lib/libpar2
Is this package supposed to take plugins, there?
It should includes a subdirectory include/, with config.h in it. See point 3.
2. Major:
This package's configuration (configure.ac/Makefile.am) is bugged:
- configure.ac uses PKG_CHECK_MODULES(..sigc++..) but doesn't propagate the
results to Makefile.am. Instead the Makefile explicitly links against
-lstdc++.
This violates g++'s working principles. Linking against -lstdc++ is a g++
internal detail.
This is an upstream bug. I am not an automake guru (not yet). I added a patch
in the package. It should correct this point. I'll try to make this patch
accepted by upstream, as soon as somebody confirms that this patch is correct.
3. Severe (Blocker):
The package installs an autoheader (config.h) to a public directory
(/usr/lib/libpar2/include/config.h). This file's contents will clash with
other
package's config headers and is a severe (must fix) design flaw of this
package.
A package must not install an autoheader.
I do not understand this point. This file config.h is in a directory owned by
the package: %{_libdir}/libpar2/include/
If a package cannot install an autoheader (such as config.h), how could
dependencies access to the compilation options used to build the package?
I have checked that several packages, some in FE, have config.h in
%{_libdir}/%{name}/include: at least sigc++-2.0, gtkmm-2.4, glib-2.0, and
gtk-2.0. I thought this was the usual way to process with config.h
Can you confirm that this point is a blocker for this request? As far as I
understand things, it does not seem too.
--
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 190991] Review Request: libpar2
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: libpar2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190991
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-08 11:12 EST ---
(In reply to comment #3)
3. Severe (Blocker):
The package installs an autoheader (config.h) to a public directory
(/usr/lib/libpar2/include/config.h). This file's contents will clash with
other
package's config headers and is a severe (must fix) design flaw of this
package.
A package must not install an autoheader.
I do not understand this point. This file config.h is in a directory owned by
the package: %{_libdir}/libpar2/include/
If a package cannot install an autoheader (such as config.h), how could
dependencies access to the compilation options used to build the package?
There is no general answer to this question, but somehow - This is the basic
question package configuration tools want to solve.
The fundamental design flaws with exporting config header are:
* autoheaders generated config.h's contain a snapshot of the build system's
state having been taken at the time the configure script had been run.
This state is by no means connected to a system's state, the package had been
installed on.
* autoheaders contain defines that are reserved to autoconf and will clash with
those autoconf internal defines being used by configure scripts wanting to use
this library. (E.g. /usr/lib/libpar2/include/config.h's PACKAGE_NAME will do
so)
* autoheaders reflect a package's internal demands/requirements. These are not
connected to a package using a package's demands.
AFAIS, libpar2 expects packages using it to provide a set of autoconf defines.
This doesn't work.
I have checked that several packages, some in FE, have config.h in
%{_libdir}/%{name}/include: at least sigc++-2.0, gtkmm-2.4, glib-2.0, and
gtk-2.0. I thought this was the usual way to process with config.h
If the files you are referring to are autoheaders, these packages are also
bugged.
libtiff is a well known case having suffered (still suffering?) from this issue.
Can you confirm that this point is a blocker for this request?
Yes, it is.
The sources are suffering from a design flaw which disqualify this
package from FE.
--
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 190991] Review Request: libpar2
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: libpar2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190991 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-08 23:01 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) Ralf, could you either indicate where in the guidelines this type of thing is forbidden or at least point to some discussion on the matter? Your final statement about the package being disqualified from Extras seems awfully arbitrary without it. This is not a matter of taste nor of personal preference. It's a mere technical requirement implied by autoconf's and a compiler's working principles (cf. info autoconf, search the autoconf mailing lists archive). Or to put it in short: This package is unusable. I have no opinion one way or the other on this issue because I am not familiar with it, but if you're just making up policy then I don't think it's fair to the package submitter. Sorry, but I am not making up packaging policies here nor am I accusing the packager. It's simply a case of this package's sources are broken and need to be reworked to be functional. -- 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 190991] Review Request: libpar2
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: libpar2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190991 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-07 18:10 EST --- gpar2 request is bug #190992. -- 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 190991] Review Request: libpar2
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: libpar2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190991 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||177841 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 190991] Review Request: libpar2
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: libpar2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190991 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||190992 -- 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 190991] Review Request: libpar2
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: libpar2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190991 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn|190992 | OtherBugsDependingO||190992 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
