I'm trying to package up a Common Lisp application that is built with
SBCL. Near the end of the rpmbuild run, I see this right before the
list of Provides:
prelink:
/home/jamesjer/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/pvs-sbcl-4.2-2.svn20091008.fc12.x86_64/usr/lib64/pvs/bin/ix86_64-Linux/runtime/pvs-sbclisp:
Secti
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 5:13 PM, Jerry James wrote:
> Is that due to prelink? If so, what is broken? SBCL, because it
You probably have a prelinked file in BUILD ROOT (objdump -s |
grep prelink) . Try to get rid of this in %install with prelink -u
Regards
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fe
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 10:12 AM, yersinia wrote:
> You probably have a prelinked file in BUILD ROOT (objdump -s |
> grep prelink) . Try to get rid of this in %install with prelink -u
Oh ho! The sbcl executable has already been prelinked. When
save-lisp-and-die is called (at least with :execut
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Jerry James wrote:
> So this is going to hit anybody who tries to package up an executable
> produced by SBCL. Perhaps this should be noted on
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Lisp.
And it's even worse than I thought: "prelink -u saved-image" strips
ou
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 01:48:20PM -0700, Jerry James wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Jerry James wrote:
> > So this is going to hit anybody who tries to package up an executable
> > produced by SBCL. Perhaps this should be noted on
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Lisp.
>
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> You need to first prelink -u on a copy of the program, then
> run it and let it dump itself, then package it up.
Ah, thanks.
> I'd actually argue that such packaging is broken anyway, because you didn't
> compile the binary you are packagin
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 2:09 PM, Jerry James wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> You need to first prelink -u on a copy of the program, then
>> run it and let it dump itself, then package it up.
>
> Ah, thanks.
FWIW, this didn't work. It solved the problem with gen
> FWIW, this didn't work. It solved the problem with generating
> uninstallable RPMs, but the binary RPM contains a pristine SBCL image.
> I know a good image was dumped, because it is executed during the
> build to generate some auxiliary files. I see it running in the log,
> so something about
