[Bug 225783] Merge Review: gdb
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=225783 --- Comment #30 from Jan Kratochvil jan.kratoch...@redhat.com 2010-03-10 04:51:24 EST --- (In reply to comment #29) (In reply to comment #28) gdb/osf-share/HP800/cma_thread_io.h is apparently BSD-ish license. Posted: Licensing: gdb/osf-share/ is GPL-incompatible http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2010-03/msg00061.html Just it IMO should not be tagged as BSD with advertising as the companies listed there are not Berkeley. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Good_Licenses Going to use (currently without the gdb/osf-share/ before it gets resolved upstream): License: GPLv3+ and GPLv3+ with exceptions and GPLv2+ and GPL+ and LGPLv2+ and GFDL and Public Domain -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 225783] Merge Review: gdb
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=225783 Jan Kratochvil jan.kratoch...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(mc...@redhat.com) --- Comment #31 from Jan Kratochvil jan.kratoch...@redhat.com 2010-03-10 14:47:58 EST --- In CVS F-13/ as gdb-7.0.90.20100306-21.fc13. License: GPLv3+ and GPLv3+ with exceptions and GPLv2+ and GPL+ and LGPLv2+ and GFDL and BSD and Public Domain Used BSD for gdb/osf-share/ as it looks like: BSD License (no advertising) BSD Yes Yes Yes https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/BSD#3ClauseBSD -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 225783] Merge Review: gdb
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=225783 --- Comment #32 from Jan Kratochvil jan.kratoch...@redhat.com 2010-03-10 15:11:50 EST --- In CVS F-13/ as gdb-7.0.90.20100306-22.fc13. Add GPLv2+ with exceptions for files like libtool.m4. License: GPLv3+ and GPLv3+ with exceptions and GPLv2+ and GPLv2+ with exceptions and GPL+ and LGPLv2+ and GFDL and BSD and Public Domain -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 225783] Merge Review: gdb
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=225783 Matej Cepl mc...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE --- Comment #34 from Matej Cepl mc...@redhat.com 2010-03-10 16:19:24 EST --- yes, of course, this is Merge Review. Closing as Rawhide. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 225783] Merge Review: gdb
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=225783
Matej Cepl mc...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|needinfo?(nob...@fedoraproj |
|ect.org)|
--- Comment #25 from Matej Cepl mc...@redhat.com 2010-03-09 10:51:20 EST ---
+ MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review
Sources used when checking (from Fedora CVS for F-13):
johanka:F-13$ md5sum gdb.spec gdb-7.0.90.20100306.tar.bz2
b0dadd6e0bf07f2d73ce87c53538edcc gdb.spec
9d52988c5b2a2085e0ee5df89393e5a0 gdb-7.0.90.20100306.tar.bz2
(plus 117 patches for which I haven't calculated md5sums)
johanka:F-13$ rpmlint -i gdb-7.0.90.20100306-20.fc13.src.rpm x86_64/gdb-*.rpm
gdb.src: W: strange-permission gdb-6.8-bz457187-largefile-test.patch 0775L
A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions.
Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions.
gdb.src: W: invalid-url Source4: libstdc++-v3-python-r155978.tar.bz2
The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL.
gdb.src: W: invalid-url Source0: gdb-7.0.90.20100306.tar.bz2
The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL.
gdb.x86_64: E: postin-without-ldconfig
/usr/share/gdb/auto-load/usr/lib64/libstdc++.so.6.0.13-gdb.pyo
This package contains a library and its %post scriptlet doesn't call ldconfig.
gdb.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun
/usr/share/gdb/auto-load/usr/lib64/libstdc++.so.6.0.13-gdb.pyo
This package contains a library and provides no %postun scriptlet containing a
call to ldconfig.
gdb.x86_64: E: postin-without-ldconfig
/usr/share/gdb/auto-load/usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6.0.13-gdb.pyc
This package contains a library and its %post scriptlet doesn't call ldconfig.
gdb.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun
/usr/share/gdb/auto-load/usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6.0.13-gdb.pyc
This package contains a library and provides no %postun scriptlet containing a
call to ldconfig.
gdb.x86_64: E: postin-without-ldconfig
/usr/share/gdb/auto-load/usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6.0.13-gdb.pyo
This package contains a library and its %post scriptlet doesn't call ldconfig.
gdb.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun
/usr/share/gdb/auto-load/usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6.0.13-gdb.pyo
This package contains a library and provides no %postun scriptlet containing a
call to ldconfig.
gdb.x86_64: E: postin-without-ldconfig
/usr/share/gdb/auto-load/usr/lib64/libstdc++.so.6.0.13-gdb.pyc
This package contains a library and its %post scriptlet doesn't call ldconfig.
gdb.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun
/usr/share/gdb/auto-load/usr/lib64/libstdc++.so.6.0.13-gdb.pyc
This package contains a library and provides no %postun scriptlet containing a
call to ldconfig.
gdb.x86_64: E: postin-without-ldconfig
/usr/share/gdb/auto-load/usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6.0.13-gdb.py
This package contains a library and its %post scriptlet doesn't call ldconfig.
gdb.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun
/usr/share/gdb/auto-load/usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6.0.13-gdb.py
This package contains a library and provides no %postun scriptlet containing a
call to ldconfig.
gdb.x86_64: E: postin-without-ldconfig
/usr/share/gdb/auto-load/usr/lib64/libstdc++.so.6.0.13-gdb.py
This package contains a library and its %post scriptlet doesn't call ldconfig.
gdb.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun
/usr/share/gdb/auto-load/usr/lib64/libstdc++.so.6.0.13-gdb.py
This package contains a library and provides no %postun scriptlet containing a
call to ldconfig.
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 12 errors, 3 warnings.
johanka:F-13$
(for explanation of the above warnings see the previous comments here)
NO PROBLEM HERE
+ MUST: package named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
+ MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}
+ MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
Package far exceeds level of the Packaging Guidelines. (I would probably make
pearls like
! find -name *.rej # Should not happen.
more readable, but certainly whole spec is very correct).
+ MUST: The package licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines
- MUST: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual
license
I went through whole gdb and found it to be incredible collection of all
possible licenses, so that my proposed License tag is
License: GPLv3+ and GFDL and GPLv2+ and GPLv3+ and GPLv3+ with exceptions and
LGPLv2+ and and GPL+ and Public Domain
(all on one line)
+ MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package must be included in %doc.
+ MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
+ MUST: The spec file for the
[Bug 225783] Merge Review: gdb
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=225783 Jan Kratochvil jan.kratoch...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(mc...@redhat.com) --- Comment #27 from Jan Kratochvil jan.kratoch...@redhat.com 2010-03-09 13:21:03 EST --- (In reply to comment #26) suggested fix for License: field +License: GPLv3+ and GFDL and GPLv2+ and GPLv3+ and GPLv3+ with exceptions and LGPLv2+ and GPL+ and Public Domain (a) There is duplicate GPLv3+. I wrote in PkgWrangler also GPLv3 but I cannot find any such licensed file now. (b) Where have you found GPL+? Thanks for all the work! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 225783] Merge Review: gdb
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=225783 Matej Cepl mc...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mc...@redhat.com 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 225783] Merge Review: gdb
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=225783 Matej Cepl mc...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(nob...@fedoraproj ||ect.org) --- Comment #22 from Matej Cepl mc...@redhat.com 2010-03-08 10:22:32 EST --- Couple of warnings (URL we dealt with over IRC, other ones should be either fixed or at least explained somehow in SPEC). johanka:F-13$ rpmlint -i gdb-7.0.90.20100306-18.fc13.src.rpm gdb.src: W: strange-permission gdb-6.8-bz457187-largefile-test.patch 0775L A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions. Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions. - I may not understand the comment correctly. Is this explained in the spec file? gdb.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch328: gdb-6.8-inlining-by-name.patch A patch is included in your package but was not applied. Refer to the patches documentation to see what's wrong. gdb.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch350: gdb-6.8-inlining-addon.patch A patch is included in your package but was not applied. Refer to the patches documentation to see what's wrong. - just warning, explained in SPEC ... OK gdb.src: W: invalid-url Source4: libstdc++-v3-python-r155978.tar.bz2 The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL. --- we talked about it gdb.src: W: invalid-url Source0: ftp://sourceware.org/pub/gdb/snapshots/branch/gdb-7.0.90.20100306.tar.bz2 urlopen error ftp error: [Errno ftp error] 550 gdb-7.0.90.20100306.tar.bz2: No such file or directory The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL. --- just break the lines, typographical nonsense. gdb-gdbserver.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C This package provides a program that allows you to run GDB on a different machine than the one which is running the program being debugged. and many others ... quite clearly a bug in rpmlint. Don't bother. Please, fix these and we can deal with the proper packaging review then. gdb.x86_64: E: postin-without-ldconfig /usr/share/gdb/auto-load/usr/lib64/libstdc++.so.6.0.13-gdb.pyo -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 225783] Merge Review: gdb
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=225783 --- Comment #23 from Matej Cepl mc...@redhat.com 2010-03-08 10:24:09 EST --- (In reply to comment #22) and many others ... quite clearly a bug in rpmlint. Don't bother. Please, fix these and we can deal with the proper packaging review then. gdb.x86_64: E: postin-without-ldconfig /usr/share/gdb/auto-load/usr/lib64/libstdc++.so.6.0.13-gdb.pyo Sorry, it should be: and many others ... quite clearly a bug in rpmlint. Don't bother. gdb.x86_64: E: postin-without-ldconfig /usr/share/gdb/auto-load/usr/lib64/libstdc++.so.6.0.13-gdb.pyo -- Please, fix these and we can deal with the proper packaging review then. i.e.,don't bother with broken rpmlint. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 225783] Merge Review: gdb
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=225783 --- Comment #24 from Jan Kratochvil jan.kratoch...@redhat.com 2010-03-08 10:37:27 EST --- (In reply to comment #22) gdb.src: W: strange-permission gdb-6.8-bz457187-largefile-test.patch 0775L A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions. Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions. No permissions to fix it and no luck requesting the change: https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/1916 I may not understand the comment correctly. Is this explained in the spec file? gdb.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch328: gdb-6.8-inlining-by-name.patch A patch is included in your package but was not applied. Refer to the patches documentation to see what's wrong. gdb.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch350: gdb-6.8-inlining-addon.patch A patch is included in your package but was not applied. Refer to the patches documentation to see what's wrong. There was for it: # Disable break-by-name on inlined functions due to a regression on parameters # of inlined functions falsely optimized out (BZ 556975 Comment 8). # Disable addon (finish) due to inline-cmds.exp: up from outer_inline2 assert. I will reapply the patches in different form in the future, OK, I will remove them now as there are zillions of other patches in similar state. gdb.src: W: invalid-url Source0: ftp://sourceware.org/pub/gdb/snapshots/branch/gdb-7.0.90.20100306.tar.bz2 urlopen error ftp error: [Errno ftp error] 550 gdb-7.0.90.20100306.tar.bz2: No such file or directory The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL. Fixed in: gdb-7.0.90.20100306-19.fc13 just break the lines, typographical nonsense. gdb-gdbserver.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C This package provides a program that allows you to run GDB on a different machine than the one which is running the program being debugged. Fixed. and many others ... quite clearly a bug in rpmlint. Don't bother. Please, fix these and we can deal with the proper packaging review then. gdb.x86_64: E: postin-without-ldconfig /usr/share/gdb/auto-load/usr/lib64/libstdc++.so.6.0.13-gdb.pyo Ignored. Thanks, current state: gdb-7.0.90.20100306-20.fc13 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 225783] Merge Review: gdb
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=225783
--- Comment #21 from Jan Kratochvil jan.kratoch...@redhat.com 2010-03-03
16:25:12 EST ---
(In reply to comment #20)
There is still the RPMLINT message:
E: gdb hardcoded-library-path in /lib/libc.so
but not aware of its solution.
GDB needs both biarch glibcs for its build-time testsuite.
Specifying them directly (glibc.i386+glibc.x86_64 || glibc.ppc+glibc.ppc64) is
not possible as some of the build farms use glibc32.x86_64 to be purely
x86_64.
The %{eprefix} etc. is not usable for root-based /lib.
This has been fixed in gdb-7.0.1-22.fc12:
- Replace all hardcoded-library-path by variants of %%{_isa}.
Requesting to get the review CLOSED if there are no other objections.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
