[Bug 202224] Review Request: libtirpc
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: libtirpc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202224 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium Product|Fedora Core |Fedora -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202224] Review Request: libtirpc
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: libtirpc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202224 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED])| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 11:57 EST --- Build task: http://brewweb.devel.redhat.com/brew/taskinfo?taskID=160309 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202224] Review Request: libtirpc
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: libtirpc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202224 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO OtherBugsDependingO|188267 |188268 nThis|| Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]) --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 20:04 EST --- Ok, approved. I'm supposing that this will be a dep of other things, so it doesn't need to be explicitly listed in comps, correct? Please close when you've built. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202224] Review Request: libtirpc
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: libtirpc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202224
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED
Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED])|
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 20:00 EST ---
Made the following changes and updated the spec file and srpm.
diff -r1.6 libtirpc.spec
9c9
< BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
---
> BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
54c54
< %configure --enable-gss --prefix=%{buildroot}
---
> %configure --enable-gss
62c62
< rm -f $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}/*.{a,la}
---
> rm -f %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/*.{a,la}
75c75
< %{_sysconfdir}/netconfig
---
> %config(noreplace)%{_sysconfdir}/netconfig
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202224] Review Request: libtirpc
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: libtirpc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202224
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 19:27 EST ---
Proposed patch to fix things up:
Also changes my example removal of static libs to use your preferred
%{buildroot} rather than $RPM_BUILD_ROOT, for consistency sake.
--- ./libtirpc.spec.jk 2006-08-15 18:03:45.0 -0400
+++ ./libtirpc.spec 2006-08-15 18:36:58.0 -0400
@@ -51,7 +51,7 @@
%build
autoreconf -fisv
-%configure --enable-gss --prefix=%{buildroot}
+%configure --enable-gss
make all
%install
@@ -59,7 +59,7 @@
mkdir -p %{buildroot}/etc
make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}
# Don't package .a or .la files
-rm -f $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}/*.{a,la}
+rm -f %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/*.{a,la}
%post -p /sbin/ldconfig
@@ -72,7 +72,7 @@
%defattr(-,root,root)
%doc AUTHORS ChangeLog NEWS README
%{_libdir}/libtirpc.so.*
-%{_sysconfdir}/netconfig
+%config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/netconfig
%files devel
%defattr(0644,root,root,755)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202224] Review Request: libtirpc
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: libtirpc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202224
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO
Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED])
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 19:24 EST ---
Whoops, just noticed that buildroot isn't quite right. You have:
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
but the guidelines prefer:
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
By using make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} you no longer have to use
--prefix=%{buildroot} as files install in the right place.
%{_sysconfdir}/netconfig should probably be marked as a config file, perhaps
even config(noreplace). 'netconfig' is a pretty generic term, does anything
else use it or are you claiming that namespace? (:
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202224] Review Request: libtirpc
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: libtirpc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202224 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 17:55 EST --- > - Don't package static libraries unless there is a VERY good reason to do so. Done. > - Don't list gssapi requirement specifically, rpm will figure that out on its > own when building the package. Done. Spec file and srpm have been updated. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202224] Review Request: libtirpc
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: libtirpc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202224 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 17:43 EST --- Bah, mid-air collision. But I'll submit this anyway. There are precious few reasons: The thing just won't build a .so. It needs to be linked against something used at boot time or in rescue or single user mode. That's about all I can think of. I've seen that argument for things like numerical libraries where folks want to link and then run on a different system without having to install any additional libraries, but I don't recall whether that argument was persuasive. Just realised I'm talking about Extras here and this is a Core review, so perhaps the criteria are different. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202224] Review Request: libtirpc
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: libtirpc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202224 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 17:31 EST --- I personally can't think of any off the top of my head. Others have come up with reasons, I think maybe some stuff used in a boot environment where you don't want shared libs perhaps. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202224] Review Request: libtirpc
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: libtirpc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202224 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED])| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 16:57 EST --- Just curious what is an valid reason to include a static library? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202224] Review Request: libtirpc
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: libtirpc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202224 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]) --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 10:41 EST --- I agree w/ Ulrich. As to the rpm requirement, When building a package, RPM will ldd the libraries to see what other libraries it is linked against and uses that to populate the Requires list. I tested your package myself by removing the explicit Requires: line, and the rpm that was produced DID have a requirement on the gssapi library. This is the preferred method of determining deps. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202224] Review Request: libtirpc
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: libtirpc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202224 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 09:55 EST --- > I really don't think excluding the static library is a good idea... There really is no good reason to ship a static archive. You're not doing anybody a favor. People might inadvertendly link against it and then security or bug updates don't apply. Of you want to debug a system and use a specially annotated DSO which would not be picked up. Archives should be distributed only for _very_ good reasons. Small and "pretty legacy" code is none of them. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202224] Review Request: libtirpc
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: libtirpc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202224
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED
Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED])|
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 07:30 EST ---
> - Use %{name}-%{version} in URL field as to not have to update it every time
> the
> version changes.
Done.
> - Remove Requires(postun) and (pre) on ldconfig, as %post -p picks that up
> automagically
Done.
> - Replace %makeinstall with make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}. %makeinstall
> has been known to break packages in bad ways and its use is highly
> discouraged.
Done. This good to know... I thought %makeinstall was the approved way... I
guess I'll need to make this change other packages as well...
> - Don't package static libraries unless there is a VERY good reason to do so.
So we no longer support static libraries in devel packages? I don't think
that is a very good idea.. Being that this is a relatively small library
and the RPC code is pretty legacy code... I really don't think excluding the
static library is a good idea...
> - Don't list gssapi requirement specifically, rpm will figure that out on its
> own when building the package.
So your saying to removed the "Requires: libgssapi" from the spec file?
How will rpm know that this library needes libgssapi? I must be missing
something...
Spec file and RPM updated with first three requests...
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202224] Review Request: libtirpc
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: libtirpc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202224
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |NEEDINFO
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OtherBugsDependingO|188265 |188267
nThis||
Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED])
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 15:43 EST ---
NEEDSWORK:
- Use %{name}-%{version} in URL field as to not have to update it every time the
version changes.
- Remove Requires(postun) and (pre) on ldconfig, as %post -p picks that up
automagically
- Replace %makeinstall with make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}. %makeinstall has
been known to break packages in bad ways and its use is highly discouraged.
- Don't package static libraries unless there is a VERY good reason to do so.
- Don't list gssapi requirement specifically, rpm will figure that out on its
own when building the package.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202224] Review Request: libtirpc
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: libtirpc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202224 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-14 12:08 EST --- Updated Spec and SRPM. Found a problem with last release. Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/steved/tirpc/lib/0.1.7-3/libtirpc.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/steved/tirpc/lib/0.1.7-3/libtirpc-0.1.7-3.fc6.src.rpm WRT Bill's Comment #7, I totally agree... sooner whould have been better... So now if you would like be to wait until early FC7 for this code, just let me know... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202224] Review Request: libtirpc
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: libtirpc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202224 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-11 20:52 EST --- OK, I suppose. Would have really liked to have had this for feature freeze. :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202224] Review Request: libtirpc
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: libtirpc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202224 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-11 14:49 EST --- rpcbind which will replace portmapper. I'm currently working on the rpcbind rpm now, but I need the libtirpc lib in place to move forward. Once these two rpms are in place, I can start moving forward on porting all the RPC applications (yp*,nfs*, etc) to the new library resulting in making them IPv6 aware... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 202224] Review Request: libtirpc
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: libtirpc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202224 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-11 13:58 EST --- What's going to use it initially? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
