[Bug 507053] Review Request: latrace - glibc 2.4+ LD_AUDIT feature frontend
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=507053 Dan Horák d...@danny.cz changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #12 from Dan Horák d...@danny.cz 2009-09-17 04:31:39 EDT --- Closing, the package is imported and built. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 507053] Review Request: latrace - glibc 2.4+ LD_AUDIT feature frontend
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=507053 Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fab...@bernewireless.net AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|d...@danny.cz --- Comment #10 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-07-29 06:30:18 EDT --- I see no build for this package. Bug assigned to the reviewer. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 507053] Review Request: latrace - glibc 2.4+ LD_AUDIT feature frontend
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=507053 --- Comment #11 from Jiri Olsa jo...@redhat.com 2009-07-30 01:37:51 EDT --- I haven't make it so far due to lack of time.. I'll provide within a week -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 507053] Review Request: latrace - glibc 2.4+ LD_AUDIT feature frontend
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=507053 Jiri Olsa jo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Jiri Olsa jo...@redhat.com 2009-07-15 10:27:32 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: latrace Short Description: LD_AUDIT feature frontend for glibc 2.4+ Owners: jolsa Branches: F11 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 507053] Review Request: latrace - glibc 2.4+ LD_AUDIT feature frontend
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=507053 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #9 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-07-16 01:34:35 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 507053] Review Request: latrace - glibc 2.4+ LD_AUDIT feature frontend
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=507053 Dan Horák d...@danny.cz changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 507053] Review Request: latrace - glibc 2.4+ LD_AUDIT feature frontend
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=507053 Dan Horák d...@danny.cz changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Dan Horák d...@danny.cz 2009-07-08 16:30:46 EDT --- All issues are fixed OK source files match upstream: 03953b3b97ef32f5b279071c60426ce2eeb3ca53 latrace-0.5.6.tar.bz2 OK rpmlint is silent. OK file permissions are appropriate. this package is APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 507053] Review Request: latrace - glibc 2.4+ LD_AUDIT feature frontend
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=507053 --- Comment #4 from Jiri Olsa jo...@redhat.com 2009-07-06 12:39:20 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) formal review is here, see the notes below: BAD source files match upstream: OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines. OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. OK dist tag is present. OK license field matches the actual license. OK license is open source-compatible (GPLv3+). License text included in package. OK latest version is being packaged. OK BuildRequires are proper. OK compiler flags are appropriate. OK %clean is present. OK package builds in mock (Rawhide/x86_64). OK debuginfo package looks complete. BAD rpmlint is silent. OK final provides and requires look sane. N/A %check is present and all tests pass. OK no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. OK owns the directories it creates. OK doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. OK no duplicates in %files. BAD file permissions are appropriate. OK correct scriptlets present. OK code, not content. OK documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. OK no headers. OK no pkgconfig files. OK no libtool .la droppings. OK not a GUI app. - source archives differs - a newer one is packaged in srpm, you should never change a publicly released archive, but release a new one with increased version - rpmlint complains a bit: latrace.src: W: no-version-in-last-changelog latrace.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Changelogs fixed latrace.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libltaudit.so - can be ignored here fixed latrace.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libltaudit.so e...@glibc_2.2.5 - hint when rpmlint is run with -i This library package calls exit() or _exit(), probably in a non-fork() context. Doing so from a library is strongly discouraged - when a library function calls exit(), it prevents the calling program from handling the error, reporting it to the user, closing files properly, and cleaning up any state that the program has. It is preferred for the library to return an actual error code and let the calling program decide how to handle the situation. - requires a comment why this is correct it is in the flex code.. YY_FATAL_ERROR define defaults to yy_fatal_error function, which calls exit. So far I can see 2 options: - either leave it as it is, ending up in the program exit due to the fatal cond., - or redefine YY_FATAL_ERROR to notify user without exit, but this ends with segfault.. currently I'd rather leave it as it is latrace.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/latrace 0555 latrace.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/libltaudit.so 0555 - should be 0755 - config files in /etc should be writable by owner (0644) fixed new spec file and sources are uploaded: Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/jolsa/latrace/latrace.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/jolsa/latrace/latrace-0.5.6-1.fc11.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 507053] Review Request: latrace - glibc 2.4+ LD_AUDIT feature frontend
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=507053 --- Comment #5 from Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com 2009-07-06 12:57:18 EDT --- Should this obsolete ltrace? Maybe I'm confused as to the usage case overlap here. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 507053] Review Request: latrace - glibc 2.4+ LD_AUDIT feature frontend
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=507053 --- Comment #6 from Jiri Olsa jo...@redhat.com 2009-07-06 15:50:15 EDT --- Well, ltrace is able to display system calls also, which latrace is not, as it is a pure glibc LD_AUDIT frontend. The justification for the latrace usage should be probably the speed.. it should be far more faster then ltrace, since it uses callbacks directly from the glibc dynamic linker. for latrace usage plz see links on http://latrace.sourceforge.net/doc.shtml -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 507053] Review Request: latrace - glibc 2.4+ LD_AUDIT feature frontend
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=507053 --- Comment #3 from Dan Horák d...@danny.cz 2009-07-03 03:56:45 EDT --- formal review is here, see the notes below: BAD source files match upstream: OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines. OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. OK dist tag is present. OK license field matches the actual license. OK license is open source-compatible (GPLv3+). License text included in package. OK latest version is being packaged. OK BuildRequires are proper. OK compiler flags are appropriate. OK %clean is present. OK package builds in mock (Rawhide/x86_64). OK debuginfo package looks complete. BAD rpmlint is silent. OK final provides and requires look sane. N/A %check is present and all tests pass. OK no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. OK owns the directories it creates. OK doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. OK no duplicates in %files. BAD file permissions are appropriate. OK correct scriptlets present. OK code, not content. OK documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. OK no headers. OK no pkgconfig files. OK no libtool .la droppings. OK not a GUI app. - source archives differs - a newer one is packaged in srpm, you should never change a publicly released archive, but release a new one with increased version - rpmlint complains a bit: latrace.src: W: no-version-in-last-changelog latrace.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Changelogs latrace.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libltaudit.so - can be ignored here latrace.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libltaudit.so e...@glibc_2.2.5 - hint when rpmlint is run with -i This library package calls exit() or _exit(), probably in a non-fork() context. Doing so from a library is strongly discouraged - when a library function calls exit(), it prevents the calling program from handling the error, reporting it to the user, closing files properly, and cleaning up any state that the program has. It is preferred for the library to return an actual error code and let the calling program decide how to handle the situation. - requires a comment why this is correct latrace.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/latrace 0555 latrace.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/libltaudit.so 0555 - should be 0755 - config files in /etc should be writable by owner (0644) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 507053] Review Request: latrace - glibc 2.4+ LD_AUDIT feature frontend
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=507053 --- Comment #2 from Jiri Olsa jo...@redhat.com 2009-07-02 16:37:36 EDT --- made updates based on comments, new spec file and sources are uploaded: Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/jolsa/latrace/latrace.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/jolsa/latrace/latrace-0.5.5-2.fc11.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 507053] Review Request: latrace - glibc 2.4+ LD_AUDIT feature frontend
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=507053 Dan Horák d...@danny.cz changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|dho...@redhat.com |d...@danny.cz Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 507053] Review Request: latrace - glibc 2.4+ LD_AUDIT feature frontend
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=507053
--- Comment #1 from Dan Horák d...@danny.cz 2009-06-30 05:53:57 EDT ---
some notes
- tool name shouldn't be repeated in summary (e.g. LD_AUDIT feature frontend
for glibc 2.4+), but IMHO it should be description
- license tag should be GPLv3+, because you have GPLv3 or any later version
in the sources
- s/dl/download/ in the URL tag
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Sourceforge.net)
- at least bison, asciidoc and xmlto are missing in the BuildRequires - you
should try building the package in mock to find all the BRs
- run make with V=1 in %build, options passed to gcc must be visible
- doesn't build in Rawhide, I get an error
...
Note: Writing latrace.1
ASCIIDOC doc/latrace.html
ERROR: unsafe: include file: /etc/asciidoc/./stylesheets/xhtml11.css
ERROR: unsafe: include file: /etc/asciidoc/./stylesheets/xhtml11-manpage.css
ERROR: unsafe: include file: /etc/asciidoc/./stylesheets/xhtml11-quirks.css
make: *** [doc/latrace.html] Error 1
chyba: Špatný návratový kód z /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.q7Pndh (%install)
chyby sestavení RPM:
...
- 32-bit Intel platform should be encoded as %{ix86} in the ExclusiveArch tag
and ARM in lowercase
- don't mark the man page as %doc
Increase the release in next published iteration of the package if the version
remains the same.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 507053] Review Request: latrace - glibc 2.4+ LD_AUDIT feature frontend
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=507053 Jiri Olsa jo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
