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: zaptel-kmod https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177583 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |[EMAIL PROTECTED] ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 17:02 EST ------- Adding back in the last comments from the bugzilla crash: ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-08 23:18 EST ------- ok. I'd like to move this forward some... Using the spec/src.rpm from http://repo.ocjtech.us/asterisk-1.2/fedora/5/SRPMS/ (refered to from the asterisk review), and the "kernel module package" section in http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/KernelModules. Name/URL and License are all known from your spec, but the guidelines also ask: "A publishable explanation from the author(s) why the module is not merged with the mainline kernel yet and when it's planed to get merged. You of course can ask the author to explain it directly in the bug report." Can you get that information from upstream? Also from that page: "All kernel module packages should use the template as a base. Reviewers of kernel modules should diff the proposed kernel module packages against the template. Only the names and the way the modules itself are build should differ. There shouldn't be other differences without a good reason." It's unclear what template should be diffed against there. kmodtool (the latest version is used by this spec) and thus generates the spec additions exactly as required. Is there a default template for the spec file to be used? If so where? I did diff against the thinkpad-kmod, but there is a good deal of whitespace and other minor changes that make it difficult to see changes. (BTW, thinkpad-kmod has a typo in it's spec refering to lirc on line 8) ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-09 00:51 EST ------- (In reply to comment #35) > ok. I'd like to move this forward some... Excellent! > Using the spec/src.rpm from > http://repo.ocjtech.us/asterisk-1.2/fedora/5/SRPMS/ > (refered to from the asterisk review), and the "kernel module package" > section in > http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/KernelModules. > > Name/URL and License are all known from your spec, but the guidelines also > ask: > > "A publishable explanation from the author(s) why the module is not merged > with > the mainline kernel yet and when it's planed to get merged. You of course can > ask the author to explain it directly in the bug report." > > Can you get that information from upstream? I'll see if I can get some sort of statement from Digium, but it seems to be a combination of "we don't want to go to the bother" and "we don't want to be at the mercy of the kernel developers". The zaptel modules work on both 2.4 and 2.6 kernels so there's a lot of compatibility code. Many of the newer features of 2.6 aren't taken advantage of. I'm sure that it would take a lot of work to cut out the 2.4 compatibility code, rewrite to take more advantage of 2.6 and to get something that fits the kernel style guidelines. I'd also bet that the majority of serious asterisk users aren't running asterisk on the latest & greatest kernel. In fact there are quite a few using 2.4. Yet they all need bug fixes and new features from the latest zaptel modules so there will likely always be a need to have a standalone package that can compile against older kernels. Since you need a standalone package anyway, why go to the extra work of getting the modules into the mainline kernel? Anyway, that's the read I get from the upstream developers. > Also from that page: > "All kernel module packages should use the template as a base. Reviewers of > kernel modules should diff the proposed kernel module packages against the > template. Only the names and the way the modules itself are build should > differ. > There shouldn't be other differences without a good reason." > > It's unclear what template should be diffed against there. kmodtool (the > latest > version is used by this spec) and thus generates the spec additions exactly as > required. Is there a default template for the spec file to be used? If so > where? > I did diff against the thinkpad-kmod, but there is a good deal of whitespace > and > other minor changes that make it difficult to see changes. > > (BTW, thinkpad-kmod has a typo in it's spec refering to lirc on line 8) As fas as I can tell there isn't an official template yet. I've been working from the thinkpad-kmod and the lirc-kmod packages. ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-09 00:56 EST ------- I've also been seeing the following errors when trying to build i386 packages on a x86_64 host in mock: + make -C /usr/src/kernels/2.6.16-1.2122_FC5-i686 SUBDIRS=/builddir/build/BUILD/zaptel-kmod-1.2.6/_kmod_build_ modules make: Entering directory `/usr/src/kernels/2.6.16-1.2122_FC5-i686' CC [M] /builddir/build/BUILD/zaptel-kmod-1.2.6/_kmod_build_/zaptel.o /builddir/build/BUILD/zaptel-kmod-1.2.6/_kmod_build_/zaptel.c:1: error: code model 'kernel' not supported in the 32 bit mode make[1]: *** [/builddir/build/BUILD/zaptel-kmod-1.2.6/_kmod_build_/zaptel.o] Error 1 make: *** [_module_/builddir/build/BUILD/zaptel-kmod-1.2.6/_kmod_build_] Error 2make: Leaving directory `/usr/src/kernels/2.6.16-1.2122_FC5-i686' Is there something I'm doing wrong? Building x86_64 packages on a x86_64 box works fine, as well as building i386 packages on an i386 box. ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-09 01:18 EST ------- (In reply to comment #37) > I've also been seeing the following errors when trying to build i386 packages > on > a x86_64 host in mock: use "setarch i686 mock ..." to build ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-09 01:42 EST ------- I seem to get a build failure on one of the patches: + pushd zaptel-1.2.6 ~/build/BUILD/zaptel-kmod-1.2.6/zaptel-1.2.6 ~/build/BUILD/zaptel-kmod-1.2.6 + patch -p0 patching file zconfig.h + patch -p0 patching file Makefile Hunk #1 FAILED at 22. 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file Makefile.rej error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.22247 (%prep) RPM build errors: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.22247 (%prep) Can you put up the latest spec and src.rpm that you are using thats building cleanly? ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-09 09:46 EST ------- (In reply to comment #38) > (In reply to comment #37) > > I've also been seeing the following errors when trying to build i386 > > packages on > > a x86_64 host in mock: > > use "setarch i686 mock ..." to build Thanks! That works... ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-09 10:39 EST ------- (In reply to comment #39) > > Can you put up the latest spec and src.rpm that you are using thats building > cleanly? Those source rpms were built using mock, so they should be building cleanly. Nevertheless I've pushed out new source RPMs. The URL is: http://repo.ocjtech.us/asterisk-1.2/fedora/5/SRPMS/ ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 14:45 EST ------- I'm getting symbol errors both when trying to build kmod-zaptel on fc5.x86_64 and while installing pre build packages from repo.ocjtech.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] asterisk]# rpm -ivh kmod-zaptel-1.2.6-5.2.6.16_1.2133_FC5.x86_64.rpm Preparing... ########################################### [100%] 1:kmod-zaptel ########################################### [100%] WARNING: /lib/modules/2.6.16-1.2133_FC5/extra/zaptel/pciradio.ko needs unknown symbol __stack_chk_fail WARNING: /lib/modules/2.6.16-1.2133_FC5/extra/zaptel/wct4xxp.ko needs unknown symbol __stack_chk_fail WARNING: /lib/modules/2.6.16-1.2133_FC5/extra/zaptel/wcusb.ko needs unknown symbol __stack_chk_fail WARNING: /lib/modules/2.6.16-1.2133_FC5/extra/zaptel/wctdm24xxp.ko needs unknown symbol __stack_chk_fail WARNING: /lib/modules/2.6.16-1.2133_FC5/extra/zaptel/ztd-eth.ko needs unknown symbol __stack_chk_fail WARNING: /lib/modules/2.6.16-1.2133_FC5/extra/zaptel/wctdm.ko needs unknown symbol __stack_chk_fail WARNING: /lib/modules/2.6.16-1.2133_FC5/extra/zaptel/ztdynamic.ko needs unknown symbol __stack_chk_fail WARNING: /lib/modules/2.6.16-1.2133_FC5/extra/zaptel/wcte11xp.ko needs unknown symbol __stack_chk_fail WARNING: /lib/modules/2.6.16-1.2133_FC5/extra/zaptel/zaptel.ko needs unknown symbol __stack_chk_fail Same error when building the packages my self ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-12 15:17 EST ------- Me too. [EMAIL PROTECTED] tjb]# modprobe zaptel FATAL: Error inserting zaptel (/lib/modules/2.6.16-1.2133_FC5smp/extra/zaptel/zaptel.ko): Unknown symbol in module, or unknown parameter (see dmesg) [EMAIL PROTECTED] tjb]# ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-13 08:44 EST ------- The __stack_chk_fail comes from compiling modules with -fstack-protector, which they obviously shouldn't. Did the 2.6.16-1.2122_FC5 modules work for you? -- 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
