http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19
Neal Becker ndbeck...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19
Thorsten Leemhuis fed...@leemhuis.info changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|33 |
--- Comment
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19
--- Comment #32 from Neal Becker ndbeck...@gmail.com 2009-01-17 00:30:50 ---
Updated sources:
http://nbecker.dyndns.org:8080/RPM/blcr.spec
http://nbecker.dyndns.org:8080/RPM/blcr-0.8.0-1.fc10.src.rpm
--
Configure bugmail:
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19
--- Comment #29 from Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at 2009-01-06 13:40:08
---
Just use ExclusiveArch: i586 ppc ppc64 arm.
Or use i486 or i686 instead of i586, depending on how old stuff you want to
support, but the point is that one is
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19
--- Comment #31 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski r...@greysector.net
2009-01-06 23:51:51 ---
(In reply to comment #30)
Not directly related to this bug, but can someone give a brief explanation
what
i486, i586 are for? Is i686 good for
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19
Neal Becker ndbeck...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||33
--- Comment #26
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19
--- Comment #18 from Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at 2008-12-22 10:43:47
---
Can't the bug which requires -fno-stack-protector be fixed?! IMHO this is a
blocker, packages should NEVER use -fno-stack-protector, it's an invitation for
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19
--- Comment #19 from Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at 2008-12-22 10:45:09
---
Or let's say it differently: WHY is -fno-stack-protector needed? Where's the
evidence that the stack protector isn't catching a legitimate buffer overflow?
--
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19
--- Comment #20 from Neal Becker ndbeck...@gmail.com 2008-12-23 00:47:02 ---
OK, I believe we have all issues addressed.
* Static libs in static package
* Patched to eliminate -fno-stack-protector
Builds, links, passes test suite on x86_64
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19
--- Comment #21 from Orcan Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2008-12-23 01:02:47
---
* Package doesn't build with mock. It fails with:
Patch #1 (blcr-stackcheck.patch):
+ /bin/cat /builddir/build/SOURCES/blcr-stackcheck.patch
+
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19
--- Comment #23 from Neal Becker ndbeck...@gmail.com 2008-12-23 02:46:02 ---
(In reply to comment #21)
* Package doesn't build with mock. It fails with:
Patch #1 (blcr-stackcheck.patch):
+ /bin/cat
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19
Orcan Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|2 |4
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19
--- Comment #16 from Neal Becker ndbeck...@gmail.com 2008-12-22 00:03:21 ---
I believe all issues are addressed.
According to upstream, building of some sources with -fno-stack-protector is
required on some platform.
Please see:
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19
--- Comment #17 from Orcan Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2008-12-22 07:47:28
---
Almost there. You missed this part:
* The file README.devel is not and should be packaged.
My understanding is, you don't want to completely remove the static
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19
--- Comment #13 from Neal Becker ndbeck...@gmail.com 2008-12-18 16:45:45 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
This package surely needs some work. To start with:
* mock build fails on my x86_64. This is because you are trying to build and
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19
--- Comment #14 from Orcan Ogetbil orcanba...@yahoo.com 2008-12-18 17:40:12
---
(In reply to comment #13)
(In reply to comment #10)
* Try to avoid mixed ${ } %{_ } notation
Do you mean:
chrpath -d
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19
--- Comment #15 from Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at 2008-12-18 23:57:27
---
The disttag is not mandatory.
On the other hand, not using a disttag means you have to make sure the Release
tag is distinct on each branch by hand, so it's
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19
--- Comment #11 from Neal Becker ndbeck...@gmail.com 2008-12-17 13:25:29 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
This package surely needs some work. To start with:
* mock build fails on my x86_64. This is because you are trying to build and
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19
--- Comment #12 from Thorsten Leemhuis fed...@leemhuis.info 2008-12-17
15:04:41 ---
(In reply to comment #11)
What is the standard way to setup srpm to produce this result?
That will be done automatically by the push scripts if you have a
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19
--- Comment #8 from Orcan Ogetbil orcanba...@yahoo.com 2008-12-15 18:03:07
---
The links seem to be broken. Did you just do an update on your server?
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19
--- Comment #9 from Neal Becker ndbeck...@gmail.com 2008-12-15 18:53:43 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
The links seem to be broken. Did you just do an update on your server?
Yes, sorry. Moved to a new server.
Please try again.
--
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19
--- Comment #10 from Orcan Ogetbil orcanba...@yahoo.com 2008-12-16 06:48:50
---
This package surely needs some work. To start with:
* mock build fails on my x86_64. This is because you are trying to build and
include 32 bit libraries in a 64
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19
Orcan Ogetbil [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19
--- Comment #5 from Neal Becker [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-03-01 15:32:17 ---
Updated from upsteam.
Add BR chrpath
Kill .la files (we don't install them, correct?)
I did not address the cosmetic issues that were raised in the previous comment.
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19
David Timms [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
25 matches
Mail list logo
