[Bug 225622] Merge Review: boost
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225622 Till Maas opensou...@till.name changed: What|Removed |Added CC||opensou...@till.name Status Whiteboard||NotReady --- Comment #37 from Till Maas opensou...@till.name 2009-09-16 19:42:28 EDT --- Please address all other issues mentioned here. Also I noted the following: - Source is not a valid URL - Source should iirc be Source0 instead - The patches do not have any upstream status comments: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment Please remove the NotReady from the Whiteboard, once all known issues are addressed and action from a reviewer is needed again. Btw. there is also a new release available, maybe this allows to remove some patches. It is also already possible to branch for F12, so that the spec in devel can be fixed for F13, in case this is somehow necessary. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225622] Merge Review: boost
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225622 Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bugs.mich...@gmx.net --- Comment #34 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net 2009-05-04 03:19:27 EDT --- Denis, check your build target. It's dist-f12 not dist-f11. In dist-f12 (Fedora 12 development) there's a fresh ABI-incompatible icu. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225622] Merge Review: boost
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225622 --- Comment #35 from Denis Arnaud denis.arnaud_fed...@m4x.org 2009-05-04 14:15:47 EDT --- (In reply to comment #34) Denis, check your build target. It's dist-f12 not dist-f11. In dist-f12 (Fedora 12 development) there's a fresh ABI-incompatible icu. You are right, of course. However, the (Fedora CVS) devel branch now corresponds to F12 (and no longer to F11). And, as far as I understand (from https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join#Request_Builds), in order to submit an update of RMOL (bug 489233), I first need to have RMOL build successfully on the devel branch, that is, for F12. I have tried to add explicit dependency on libicu (and libicu-devel) in the RPM specification file, but the build did not succeed either. The issue seems to come from a non-explicit dependency of Boost-1.37. That's why I posted my comment on this bug report (but maybe bug 496188 is more appropriate?). I have no Rawhide distribution, so I cannot test it directly on my machine. Any feedback will be welcome on how I should proceed (to be able to build the new version of RMOL). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225622] Merge Review: boost
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225622 --- Comment #36 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net 2009-05-04 14:39:46 EDT --- You can submit builds for each branch in cvs separately. devel : currently won't build, as somebody would first need to do a rebuild of boost (for the new libicu) -- I could submit a rebuild attempt in koji but the provenpackagers guidelines are not clear on that unfortunately -- packages that build successfully in devel will be published in Rawhide automatically (on the next day) but only as soon as the F-11 freeze is over F-11 F-10 F-9 : builds done for these targets need to be released as updates via the Fedora Updates System (bodhi) If you have other questions, let's do it in private mail as not to flood this Merge Review ticket. ;) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225622] Merge Review: boost
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225622
Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
--- Comment #32 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2009-05-03 03:15:45
EDT ---
Ping?
It seems the package still does not use %{optflags}
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225622] Merge Review: boost
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225622 Denis Arnaud denis.arnaud_fed...@m4x.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||denis.arnaud_fed...@m4x.org --- Comment #33 from Denis Arnaud denis.arnaud_fed...@m4x.org 2009-05-03 21:27:44 EDT --- Besides, for Boost 1.37 (Fedora 11 / Rawhide), there seems to be an issue with the dependency on libicu, as in the build.log of RMOL (http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=1334520name=root.log): DEBUG backend.py:554: /usr/bin/yum --installroot /var/lib/mock/dist-f12-build-444978-72210/root/ resolvedep 'libicu' 'gsl-devel = 1.8' 'ghostscript' 'cppunit-devel = 1.10' 'texlive-latex' 'boost-devel = 1.34' 'doxygen' 'texlive-dvips' DEBUG util.py:280: Executing command: /usr/bin/yum --installroot /var/lib/mock/dist-f12-build-444978-72210/root/ resolvedep 'libicu' 'gsl-devel = 1.8' 'ghostscript' 'cppunit-devel = 1.10' 'texlive-latex' 'boost-devel = 1.34' 'doxygen' 'texlive-dvips' DEBUG util.py:256: 0:libicu-4.2-0.1.d03.fc12.x86_64 DEBUG util.py:256: 0:gsl-devel-1.12-3.fc11.x86_64 DEBUG util.py:256: 0:ghostscript-8.64-6.fc12.x86_64 DEBUG util.py:256: 0:cppunit-devel-1.12.1-2.fc11.x86_64 DEBUG util.py:256: 0:texlive-latex-2007-42.fc11.x86_64 DEBUG util.py:256: 0:boost-devel-1.37.0-6.fc11.x86_64 DEBUG util.py:256: 1:doxygen-1.5.8-2.fc11.x86_64 DEBUG util.py:256: 0:texlive-dvips-2007-42.fc11.x86_64 DEBUG util.py:319: Child returncode was: 0 DEBUG backend.py:554: /usr/bin/yum --installroot /var/lib/mock/dist-f12-build-444978-72210/root/ install 'libicu' 'gsl-devel = 1.8' 'ghostscript' 'cppunit-devel = 1.10' 'texlive-latex' 'boost-devel = 1.34' 'doxygen' 'texlive-dvips' DEBUG util.py:280: Executing command: /usr/bin/yum --installroot /var/lib/mock/dist-f12-build-444978-72210/root/ install 'libicu' 'gsl-devel = 1.8' 'ghostscript' 'cppunit-devel = 1.10' 'texlive-latex' 'boost-devel = 1.34' 'doxygen' 'texlive-dvips' DEBUG util.py:256: boost-1.37.0-6.fc11.x86_64 from build has depsolving problems DEBUG util.py:256:-- Missing Dependency: libicuuc.so.40()(64bit) is needed by package boost-1.37.0-6.fc11.x86_64 (build) DEBUG util.py:256: boost-1.37.0-6.fc11.x86_64 from build has depsolving problems DEBUG util.py:256:-- Missing Dependency: libicui18n.so.40()(64bit) is needed by package boost-1.37.0-6.fc11.x86_64 (build) DEBUG util.py:256: Error: Missing Dependency: libicuuc.so.40()(64bit) is needed by package boost-1.37.0-6.fc11.x86_64 (build) DEBUG util.py:256: You could try using --skip-broken to work around the problem DEBUG util.py:256: Error: Missing Dependency: libicui18n.so.40()(64bit) is needed by package boost-1.37.0-6.fc11.x86_64 (build) DEBUG util.py:256: You could try running: package-cleanup --problems DEBUG util.py:256: package-cleanup --dupes DEBUG util.py:256: rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest DEBUG util.py:256: The program package-cleanup is found in the yum-utils package. DEBUG util.py:319: Child returncode was: 1 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225622] Merge Review: boost
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225622 Patrice Dumas pertu...@free.fr changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|pertu...@free.fr|nob...@fedoraproject.org Flag|fedora-review? | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225622] Merge Review: boost
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: boost https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225622 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-05 15:31 EST --- 1.35.0 is out, and there are certainly fixes to allow to have cxxflags be put after default flags. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 225622] Merge Review: boost
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: boost
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225622
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-04 20:16 EST ---
Unless I missed something, the LICENSE_1_0.txt and README are not in the main
package, would be better if they were there.
You should drop
BuildRequires: bzip2-libs
The license tag should simply be: Boost
Maybe the flag could be
--with-python-root=%{_prefix}
instead of
--with-python-root=/usr
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 225622] Merge Review: boost
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: boost https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225622 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-03-27 09:29 EST --- While fixing #437032, I addressed following concerns: * in the %doc of the main package there should certainly be LICENSE_1_0.txt README, and many html files from the source directory, for example the faq, but also many others. [We currently distribute lib, doc and more directories.] From Patrice's patch: * BuildRequires/Requires/Provides cleanups * %prep and %check cleanups * rename to boost-static, which requires that boost-static obsoletes and provides old boost-devel-static in addition to mere rename. Moreover, I revamped %install section so that it doesn't launch one install per file, but chains installs together via xargs where possible. This simple change actually improves overall build time considerably. Some of these changes are in not-yet-built -14 release of the package, some of them are already in -13 which was built yesterday. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 225622] Merge Review: boost
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: boost https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225622 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Version|devel |rawhide --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-01-28 15:28 EST --- The patch is still to be considered. I can rebase it, but I believe it will still apply. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 225622] Merge Review: boost
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: boost https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225622 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-12 07:49 EST --- Created an attachment (id=255181) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=255181action=view) rpmlint log about boost packages Can somebody update the status of this bug? Who is submitting the review request? Benjamin seems to be the maintainer of the package. Who is reviewing it? Patrice, are you still on it? rpmlint is very versatile about boost's packages. I attach its log. The license issue is a blocker, as far as I understand the guidelines. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 225622] Merge Review: boost
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: boost https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225622 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #153190|0 |1 is obsolete|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-12 16:10 EST --- Created an attachment (id=255781) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=255781action=view) cleanups explained above and excerpted from previous patch rebased -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 225622] Merge Review: boost
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: boost https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225622 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-12 16:15 EST --- As I said in Comment 21: Yeah, I can consider that I am reviewing it. But I am very open to somebody else doing the formal review. Anybody can reassign to himself with my blessing. I never care about being assigned anyway, I care about having my comments acted upon, though ;-). Also I still have to look at the build, it seems that some things that I did in the previous patch may be still needed. And Ed also made a comment. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 225622] Merge Review: boost
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: boost https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225622 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-09-23 18:47 EST --- Hi Benjamin, The people.redhat.com URL in #23 returns a 404 for me. So I grabbed the latest boost SRPM from devel and I'd like to (please!) request that you replace the line: (cd tools/jam/src ./build.sh) with (cd tools/jam/src CFLAGS=$RPM_OPT_FLAGS ./build.sh cc ) and then please consider shipping the bjam executable either as a part of boost-devel or perhaps as a boost-bjam sub-package. I'll gladly submit a patch if that helps. thanks! Ed -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 225622] Merge Review: boost
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: boost https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225622 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-29 09:03 EST --- I'm waiting for boost-1.34.1, actually. I put up tentative rpms for this new boost code base here: http://people.redhat.com/bkoz/boost-1.34.1/ There are some issues with the boost-devel package, in that the .so symlinks have relative path names (that are incorrect). Also, I'll need to run this through the build process to determine the SONAME, which will probably be bumped to .3 depending on ABI issues. I also disabled testing for release. The srpm from boost-1.34.0.* posted here: http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2007/01/115877.php Should have these patches. (Which will have to be revisted.) Please base any future patches off this code base. best, benjamin -- 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 225622] Merge Review: boost
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: boost https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225622 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-26 05:35 EST --- There is a new release, 1.34.0 -- 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 225622] Merge Review: boost
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: boost https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225622 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-10 15:56 EST --- Yeah, I can consider that I am reviewing it. But I am very open to somebody else doing the formal review. -- 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 225622] Merge Review: boost
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: boost https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225622 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-09 00:36 EST --- Hey Patrice: Are you reviewing this package? Or just providing pre-review comments? If you are reviewing it, can you set fedora-review to ? and assign it to yourself? If not, this should be assigned to 'nobody' until a reviewer comes along. -- 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 225622] Merge Review: boost
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: boost https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225622 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-17 11:49 EST --- Hey! This is just a notice that with the new boost release, and after fedora 7 gets out the door, I intend to start hacking on this stuff again, with the goal of merging in as much of Patrice's work, then moving to the boost-1.34 codebase and that work from january on the srpms, and then rebasing f7 for this new version of boost. Thanks for your patience. -- 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 225622] Merge Review: boost
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: boost https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225622 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|normal |medium --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-20 11:28 EST --- In fact the guidelines prefer -static, I'll update my patch. -- 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 225622] Merge Review: boost
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: boost https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225622 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #151940|0 |1 is obsolete|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-20 11:30 EST --- Created an attachment (id=153190) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=153190action=view) implement review remarks replace static-devel with static -- 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 225622] Merge Review: boost
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: boost https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225622 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-10 05:13 EST --- Thanks Patrice. #11 looks good for me. As far as devel-static vs. static-devel vs. static, I don't see any other packages using static-devel. Do you? If not, why not? Is this something that should be asked on fedora-devel? #12 detail why you're doing the inlining and optimization changes. In addition, as long as you're doing this, you might as well do %optflags changes too. best, benjamin -- 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 225622] Merge Review: boost
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: boost https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225622 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-10 07:30 EST --- (In reply to comment #14) Thanks Patrice. #11 looks good for me. As far as devel-static vs. static-devel vs. static, I don't see any other packages using static-devel. Do you? If not, why not? Is this something that should be asked on fedora-devel? The guideline regarding static libs going in a separate package is relatively new. I agree it is a good idea to have a separate package for the static libraries. I personally don't care whether it is named -static, -static-devel, -devel-static and the guidelines leave this detail to the packager. I choosed -static-devel to silent rpmlint. #12 detail why you're doing the inlining and optimization changes. In addition, as long as you're doing this, you might as well do %optflags changes too. I am not doing an inlining and optimization change, I am allowing the user building boost to remove completely the optimization and inlining flags. Is there an other way? Regarding the optflags, it would be bad to hardcode them in a patch, they change depending on the platform, release, and so on and so forth. I pass them through export GXX=%__cxx $RPM_OPT_FLAGS I couldn't find a way to pass them with cxxflags since, unless I'm wrong, cxxflags only allows to pass them one by one. And I also set optimizationno inliningno to avoid any optimization and inlining flags to be set, such that they don't overwrite what is set in the optflags (and this is allowed by the patch in comment #12). As a side note I had quite a hard time with bjam. It lacks a bit of documentation and examples. I couldn't understand how to pass the python linking flags that would allow to solve the underlinking issue, as explained in comment #5. -- 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 225622] Merge Review: boost
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: boost https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225622 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-10 08:47 EST --- (In reply to comment #9) 1) why not use boost-jam for install? It provides no advantage when we are doing staged builds, and also doesn't work with prefix. In addition, it doesn't get the permissions correct. I'm not quite sure why the permissions are incorrect in rpmlint considering they are explicitly set by install to be the correct values. Any hacking by others in this area would be appreciated. I added a comment in my spec patch summarizing your point. 2) soname What upstream boost does with soname is dubious IMHO. In particular, boost libs should not change SONAMES based on gcc versions if gcc versions are compat. Ie, gcc-3.4, gcc-4.0, gcc-4.1 are compat. If using upstream boost versioning, they are not. In general, there is no ABI checking in upstream boost. Fedora does not have this luxury. Mostly, they leave this as a decision for vendors, one of whom is Fedora. The plan WRT Fedora is to provide some guidance for people using older boosts that are not ABI-compat with current boost. Thus the soname bump. I don't understand exactly what you are meaning. With the current patcheset, and without changing soname, the soname version used is the boost version. This seems to be right, if you are saying that Fedora does not have the luxury to check the boost ABI change, since it means that the soname has to be changed for every boost release. In that case the library name could be like libboost_python.so.1.33.1 the soname would be libboost_python.so.1.33.1 and there would be a so link in devel libboost_python.so pointing to libboost_python.so.1.33.1 You may also be saying the reverse, namely that you check the ABI compatibility and you don't break ABI for each release, that's why you need a soname version that don't use the boost version, but instead an integer you bump only when there has been an ABI change. Is is the case? (As a side note, even without boost-base.patch applied the gcc version isn't hardcoded in the soname. The soname is like: libboost_python-gcc-1_33_1.so.1.33.1 (or libboost_python-gcc-1_33_1.so.2 with sonameversion2 and my patch or, I guess, the previous patch).) -- 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 225622] Merge Review: boost
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: boost https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225622 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-08 17:00 EST --- Created an attachment (id=151940) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=151940action=view) spec file diff implementing merge review proposals -- 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 225622] Merge Review: boost
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: boost https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225622 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-08 17:04 EST --- Created an attachment (id=151941) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=151941action=view) remove compile flags, some optionally, and soname -- 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 225622] Merge Review: boost
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: boost https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225622 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-08 17:08 EST --- My patch replaces boost-gcc-tools.patch and boost-cxxflags-debug.patch. I think that it could be submitted upstream. Otherwise among the changes in the spec, I renamed devel-static to static-devel to shut up rpmlint. I readded Obsoletes, they are right. -- 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 225622] Merge Review: boost
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: boost https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225622 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-28 06:05 EST --- Hans suggests adding: -lpython should be added to the libboost_python LDFLAGS/LIBS? from https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=233523 -- 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 225622] Merge Review: boost
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: boost https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225622 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-28 06:07 EST --- In general, patches and more elaborate descriptions are welcome for these remaining items. Ie: (good): lpython should be added to the libboost_python LDFLAGS/LIBS is better than (?) add dots in %description -benjamin -- 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 225622] Merge Review: boost
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: boost https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225622 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-28 06:17 EST --- Please repost the list of item you want that I elaborate on, I don't know exactly which ones were fixed. My points may be terse, but I am ready to respond to any question and elaborate on any point if you think it isn't clear. I can even send patches if you give me directions on what you want to fix yourself and what you'd like to be helped with. About the description, there were final dots missing in %description but they seem to be all fixed. -- 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 225622] Merge Review: boost
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: boost
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225622
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-28 06:27 EST ---
Fixed in -12:
* BuildRoot is not the preferred one
* PreReq should be replaced by the appropriate Requires(post)
In the case of boost, an even better solution would be to use
* Boost Software License seems to me to be very similar with the MIT
license. Maybe MIT-like could be used?
* BuildRequires of libs shouldn't be necessary, they are brought in by
the -devel, so the following should be removed:
* It is not very clear to me whether the devel package requires zlib-devel,
bzip2-devel, and so on, or not.
* there is a very strange
Obsoletes: boost-doc = 1.30.2
* the main package should certainly
Provides: boost-python = %{version}-%{release}
- there are bad perms for static libs, they should be 0644
* the static libraries should certainly be moved to another
subpackage like boost-static or boost-devel-static or something
similar
Fixed, but I think probably boost-devel-static would be better. Thoughts? I
think this name is ok according to the guidelines, but what are other packages
doing WRT this issue?
* mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_docdir}
is unuseful
* add dots in %description
* -doc should be in Group Documentation (although Group doesn't matter much)
and -devel in Development/Libraries
* it seems to me that -doc shouldn't require the main package.
* you should keep the timestamps for doc and headers by using -p
* use %defattr(-, root, root, -) instead of %defattr(-, root, root)
* put the html doc in the -doc subbpackage docdir and not in the main
package docdir, using %doc
Remaining MUST:
* rpmlint shows that
* libboost_python issues
* install permissions issues
* the %optflags are not used during the build.
Remaining SHOULD:
there shouldn't be a mail sent for the test results
--
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 225622] Merge Review: boost
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: boost https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225622 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-28 06:32 EST --- 1) why not use boost-jam for install? It provides no advantage when we are doing staged builds, and also doesn't work with prefix. In addition, it doesn't get the permissions correct. I'm not quite sure why the permissions are incorrect in rpmlint considering they are explicitly set by install to be the correct values. Any hacking by others in this area would be appreciated. 2) soname What upstream boost does with soname is dubious IMHO. In particular, boost libs should not change SONAMES based on gcc versions if gcc versions are compat. Ie, gcc-3.4, gcc-4.0, gcc-4.1 are compat. If using upstream boost versioning, they are not. In general, there is no ABI checking in upstream boost. Fedora does not have this luxury. Mostly, they leave this as a decision for vendors, one of whom is Fedora. The plan WRT Fedora is to provide some guidance for people using older boosts that are not ABI-compat with current boost. Thus the soname bump. -- 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 225622] Merge Review: boost
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: boost https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225622 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-28 06:35 EST --- (In reply to comment #8) * the static libraries should certainly be moved to another subpackage like boost-static or boost-devel-static or something similar Fixed, but I think probably boost-devel-static would be better. Thoughts? Feel strongly encouraged to drop them, c.f. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-82d97fc4a3421310f4e2971180e4165965b65662 -- 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 225622] Merge Review: boost
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: boost https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225622 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-27 13:39 EST --- I took a first crack at this with boost-1.33.1-12. It doesn't get to all the points on the list but many of them. The rest are pending. -benjamin -- 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 225622] Merge Review: boost
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: boost https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225622 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- 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 225622] Merge Review: boost
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: boost https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225622 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag|needinfo? | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-22 17:43 EST --- Repeating from above: There are also many undefined-non-weak-symbol W: boost undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libboost_python.so.1.33.1 PyExc_ImportError for libboost_python, the python library should certainly be used during the link of that library. Yes, that would also have caught bug 233523 way earlier through rpm deps breaking. Also as I'm recompiling boost now because of bug 233523, you need to make sure RPM_OPT_FLAGS get used during compile, currently that isn't happening. -- 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 225622] Merge Review: boost
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: boost https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225622 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo? -- 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 225622] Merge Review: boost
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: boost
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225622
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-17 17:53 EST ---
The package should be adjusted to adhere to the fedora packaging
guidelines
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines
for the merge of fedora Core and fedora Extras.
Issues:
* the Source should lead to a real url
* BuildRoot is not the preferred one
* PreReq should be replaced by the appropriate Requires(post)
In the case of boost, an even better solution would be to use
%post -p /sbin/ldconfig
%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig
* BuildRequires of libs shouldn't be necessary, they are brought in by
the -devel, so the following should be removed:
BuildRequires: python
BuildRequires: bzip2-libs
BuildRequires: zlib
BuildRequires: libicu
* there shouldn't be a mail sent for the test results in the default
case. If you really want it, I think you should consider using a
conditional.
* Boost Software License seems to me to be very similar with the MIT
license. Maybe MIT-like could be used?
* in the %doc of the main package there should certainly be LICENSE_1_0.txt
README, and many html files from the source directory, for example the
faq, but also many others.
* why don't you use bjam for installing?
* in the doc subpackage the directory should be tagged with %doc.
* what you do with soname is dubious. Why don't you use the upstream
numbering?
* the %optflags are not used during the build.
* It is not very clear to me whether the devel package requires zlib-devel,
bzip2-devel, and so on, or not.
* there is a very strange
Obsoletes: boost-doc = 1.30.2
* the main package should certainly
Provides: boost-python = %{version}-%{release}
* rpmlint shows that
- there are bad perms for static libs, they should be 0644
- some source files have bad perms, they shouldn't be executables
- there are some scripts mixed with the headers, that were certainly
used during build, they should be removed.
and
W: boost macro-in-%changelog check
W: boost rpm-buildroot-usage %prep rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
E: boost no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
There are also many undefined-non-weak-symbol
W: boost undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libboost_python.so.1.33.1
PyExc_ImportError
for libboost_python, the python library should certainly be used during
the link of that library.
* the static libraries should certainly be moved to another
subpackage like boost-static or boost-devel-static or something
similar
* mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_docdir}
is unuseful
* add dots in %description
* -doc should be in Group Documentation (although Group doesn't matter much)
and -devel in Development/Libraries
* it seems to me that -doc shouldn't require the main package.
* you should keep the timestamps for doc and headers by using -p
Suggestions:
* add / in %files to directory, to show visually that these are directories
and not files
* use %defattr(-, root, root, -) instead of %defattr(-, root, root)
* put the html doc in the -doc subbpackage docdir and not in the main
package docdir, using %doc
--
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
