[Bug 526916] Review Request: orc - The Oil Runtime Compiler
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=526916 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added CC||randyn3...@gmail.com --- Comment #49 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2012-02-16 10:27:01 EST --- *** Bug 789192 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 526916] Review Request: orc - The Oil Runtime Compiler
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=526916 --- Comment #46 from David Schleef d...@schleef.org 2010-04-16 16:23:08 EDT --- (In reply to comment #26) Note: -DORC_ENABLE_UNSTABLE_API seems to be always enabled, it probably means packages using orc should be tested with care against API Changes and/or ABI incompatibility. Code that wants to use unstable API must specifically define ORC_ENABLE_UNSTABLE_API before including headers. It is not ever enabled by default. Currently, there isn't really any unstable API. -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 526916] Review Request: orc - The Oil Runtime Compiler
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=526916 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA --- Comment #47 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2010-04-16 19:29:51 EDT --- orc-0.4.4-2.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update orc'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/orc-0.4.4-2.fc13 -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 526916] Review Request: orc - The Oil Runtime Compiler
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=526916 --- Comment #45 from Benjamin Otte o...@redhat.com 2010-04-15 17:15:36 EDT --- orc is tagged into f13-override (seehttps://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/3609 ), so you can build the new schroedinger easily now. I've already submitted updated gstreamer-plugins-bad-free packages. -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 526916] Review Request: orc - The Oil Runtime Compiler
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=526916 --- Comment #40 from Benjamin Otte o...@redhat.com 2010-04-14 09:04:14 EDT --- Yes, please push it to F13 asap, so we can get new schroedinger and additional gst-plugins-bad-free plugins there. Is it in devel yet? -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 526916] Review Request: orc - The Oil Runtime Compiler
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=526916 --- Comment #41 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) kwiz...@gmail.com 2010-04-14 09:07:26 EDT --- You can push orc to updates-testing in F-13, but You cannot have it to build the updated schoedinger until orc goes to stable updates or you ask rel-eng for a build override. Usually packages should go in updates-testing for few days, even for new packages, then pushed to stable once tested. -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 526916] Review Request: orc - The Oil Runtime Compiler
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=526916 --- Comment #44 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2010-04-14 10:09:21 EDT --- orc-0.4.4-2.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/orc-0.4.4-2.fc13 -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 526916] Review Request: orc - The Oil Runtime Compiler
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=526916 --- Comment #36 from Fabian Deutsch fabian.deut...@gmx.de 2010-04-12 05:15:41 EDT --- Is there still something missing? -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 526916] Review Request: orc - The Oil Runtime Compiler
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=526916 Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) kwiz...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #37 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) kwiz...@gmail.com 2010-04-12 05:22:28 EDT --- sorry, i've made a misstake, fedora-cvs need to be set to ? instead of + (fixed) -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 526916] Review Request: orc - The Oil Runtime Compiler
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=526916 --- Comment #30 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) kwiz...@gmail.com 2010-04-09 09:20:09 EDT --- (In reply to comment #29) .. Fantastic :) I'm looking forward to a brand new shiny schroedinger :) Good, but you are expected to make a CVS admin request now... http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/CVS_admin_requests -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 526916] Review Request: orc - The Oil Runtime Compiler
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=526916 Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) kwiz...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? | --- Comment #31 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) kwiz...@gmail.com 2010-04-09 09:42:48 EDT --- Fabian, please read again the CVS admin requests procedure. -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 526916] Review Request: orc - The Oil Runtime Compiler
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=526916 --- Comment #32 from Fabian Deutsch fabian.deut...@gmx.de 2010-04-09 09:56:15 EDT --- Sorry ... New Package CVS Request === Package Name: orc Short Description: The Oil Runtime Compiler Owners: fabiand Branches: F-13 InitialCC: kwizart -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 526916] Review Request: orc - The Oil Runtime Compiler
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=526916 --- Comment #33 from Fabian Deutsch fabian.deut...@gmx.de 2010-04-09 09:57:14 EDT --- Is it alright to use the sponsor in the InitialCC field? -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 526916] Review Request: orc - The Oil Runtime Compiler
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=526916 Fabian Deutsch fabian.deut...@gmx.de changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #35 from Fabian Deutsch fabian.deut...@gmx.de 2010-04-09 10:16:40 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: orc Short Description: The Oil Runtime Compiler Owners: fabiand Branches: F-13 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 526916] Review Request: orc - The Oil Runtime Compiler
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=526916 --- Comment #26 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) kwiz...@gmail.com 2010-04-07 07:28:05 EDT --- Okay, but I then don't understand why the -devel sub-package doesn't requires -compiler. On the other side, the requirement of the -doc sub-package on the main is probably unneeded. (documentation doesn't need to be on the same computer than main or devel). Note: -DORC_ENABLE_UNSTABLE_API seems to be always enabled, it probably means packages using orc should be tested with care against API Changes and/or ABI incompatibility. Everything else is good, doing runtime tests now. -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 526916] Review Request: orc - The Oil Runtime Compiler
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=526916
--- Comment #27 from Fabian Deutsch fabian.deut...@gmx.de 2010-04-07 08:02:14
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #26)
Okay, but I then don't understand why the -devel sub-package doesn't requires
-compiler.
It does:
%package devel
...
Requires: %{name}-compiler
On the other side, the requirement of the -doc sub-package on the main is
probably unneeded. (documentation doesn't need to be on the same computer than
main or devel).
Note: -DORC_ENABLE_UNSTABLE_API seems to be always enabled, it probably means
packages using orc should be tested with care against API Changes and/or ABI
incompatibility.
Ok ...
Everything else is good, doing runtime tests now.
Yey :)
--
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.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 526916] Review Request: orc - The Oil Runtime Compiler
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=526916
Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) kwiz...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #28 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) kwiz...@gmail.com 2010-04-07
08:25:55 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #27)
(In reply to comment #26)
Okay, but I then don't understand why the -devel sub-package doesn't
requires
-compiler.
It does:
%package devel
...
Requires: %{name}-compiler
The spec file has the requirement indeed, but not the src.rpm
---
This SPEC file is APPROVED by me ;)
---
--
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.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 526916] Review Request: orc - The Oil Runtime Compiler
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=526916
--- Comment #29 from Fabian Deutsch fabian.deut...@gmx.de 2010-04-07 09:10:12
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #28)
(In reply to comment #27)
(In reply to comment #26)
Okay, but I then don't understand why the -devel sub-package doesn't
requires
-compiler.
It does:
%package devel
...
Requires: %{name}-compiler
The spec file has the requirement indeed, but not the src.rpm
Erm. Why is this? And: How can I check this?
---
This SPEC file is APPROVED by me ;)
---
Fantastic :) I'm looking forward to a brand new shiny schroedinger :)
--
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.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 526916] Review Request: orc - The Oil Runtime Compiler
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=526916
--- Comment #25 from Fabian Deutsch fabian.deut...@gmx.de 2010-04-05 19:29:15
EDT ---
Thanks for those lengthy replies :)
(In reply to comment #24)
(In reply to comment #23)
...
- Installed binary in devel: %{_bindir}/orcc
done.
I created a separate package -compiler
SHOULD:
- doc subpackage can be set as noarch as it's rather big (450ko)
How can I establish this? %ifdef noarch?
You can use:
BuildArch: noarch
Within the %package -doc section. But this only work with newer Fedora.
done
- It should be possible to avoid usage of generated header in the API:
orc/orc-stdint.h:#define _STDINT_HAVE_STDINT_H 1
done
Spec and srpm:
http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/~fabiand/fedora/orc/2/orc.spec
http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/~fabiand/fedora/orc/2/orc-0.4.4-2.fc14.src.rpm
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2096454
--
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.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 526916] Review Request: orc - The Oil Runtime Compiler
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=526916
--- Comment #24 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) kwiz...@gmail.com 2010-03-31
18:34:10 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #23)
...
Done. Do you recommend this always, using -p ? If so this should be discussed
somewhere (ml, bz).
This has been stated on the guidelines:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Timestamps
Once that said, it's true that it could have been handled with another macro,
the current %makeinstall macro been forbidden:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Why_the_.25makeinstall_macro_should_not_be_used
- Installed binary in devel: %{_bindir}/orcc
...
So how can I handle this in the spec?
The current multilibs scheme picks the -devel package and search for packages
it depends on. If it bundles libraries, both versions of the dependent package
are copied into the 64bit repository. If it contains binaries, only one version
is copied into the 64bit repository.
So the best way is to split %{_bindir}/orcc into another package which is
required by the -devel.
SHOULD:
- doc subpackage can be set as noarch as it's rather big (450ko)
How can I establish this? %ifdef noarch?
You can use:
BuildArch: noarch
Within the %package -doc section. But this only work with newer Fedora.
- rpmlint on installed packages isn't clean:
# rpmlint orc
orc.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/liborc-0.4.so.0.0.0
/lib64/librt.so.1
orc.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/liborc-float-0.4.so.0.0.0 /lib64/librt.so.1
I'm not that into autotools, but it seems as if this is hardcoded for alle orc
libs: configure.ac:117.
Indeed, Once that said you don't need to fix overlinking, only underlinking
needs to be tracked as this often prevent preload to work with the underlinked
library.
It's only requested to warn upstream about that.
- It should be possible to avoid usage of generated header in the API:
orc/orc-stdint.h:#define _STDINT_HAVE_STDINT_H 1
Sorry, I've got no clue what to do :)
In an ideal world, a given API shouldn't be platform specific, so headers
generated at build time should be prevented (except for constant like for a
package to know which version it is).
We don't use native -devel headers to cross compile to mingw32 or another cross
compilation target, so it doesn't matter that much.
Once that said, this orc/orc-stdint.h will be generated at build time, and the
32bit version will have a different time-stamp than the 64bit version. So you
need to do:
touch -r stamp-h1 %{buildroot}%{_includedir}/%{name}-0.4/orc/orc-stdint.h
--
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.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 526916] Review Request: orc - The Oil Runtime Compiler
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=526916 --- Comment #20 from Fabian Deutsch fabian.deut...@gmx.de 2010-03-30 04:54:22 EDT --- Shortly after this comment a new release appeard: http://code.entropywave.com/2010/03/orc-0-4-4-released/ SPEC: http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/~fabiand/fedora/orc/1/orc.spec SRPM: http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/~fabiand/fedora/orc/1/orc-0.4.4-1.fc14.src.rpm Corresponding koji task: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2083642 rpmlint shows no errors/warnings for any koji generated file. (In reply to comment #19) The library sizes are for non-default configurations that are only intended for embedded use. The standard configuration includes all backends, plus the parser. The sizes listed here sound reasonable. Sounds good. The x86-64 testsuite failure is a real bug. I just fixed it in master, and will be releasing 0.4.4 shortly (todayish?) with the fix (along with a bunch of other fixes). The koji build is running fine. @kwizart Can you still reproduce the problem on AMD arches? The powerpc-64 bug appears to be a real bug, and it looks like it happens on powerpc-32 as well. I'll look into it after the release. Ok. This should not be a problem for us, as ppc is no primary arch. -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 526916] Review Request: orc - The Oil Runtime Compiler
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=526916
--- Comment #21 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) kwiz...@gmail.com 2010-03-30
18:15:06 EDT ---
rpmbuild on AMD 64bit has succeeded. Good!
NEEDWORK:
- Headers are still installed without preventing time-stamp changes.
There is currently no macro to set this by default, this have to be set
manually and will prevent multilibs conflicts when installing -devel from two
different arches.
- Installed binary in devel: %{_bindir}/orcc
This binary look like a pre-compiler tool. Is it possible (does it make sense)
for it, to produce 32bit code using x86_64 version ? In the current situation
orc-devel.i686 and orc-devel.x86_64 must be able to be installed together and
the 64bit version of the binary will be taken over the 32bit version.
SHOULD:
- doc subpackage can be set as noarch as it's rather big (450ko)
- rpmlint on installed packages isn't clean:
# rpmlint orc
orc.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/liborc-0.4.so.0.0.0
/lib64/librt.so.1
orc.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/liborc-float-0.4.so.0.0.0 /lib64/librt.so.1
- Untracked action from upstream build system:
You need to do: rm -rf %{buildroot}/%{_libdir}/orc. Is it possible to have it
handled upstream at some point ?
- It should be possible to avoid usage of generated header in the API:
orc/orc-stdint.h:#define _STDINT_HAVE_STDINT_H 1
--
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.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 526916] Review Request: orc - The Oil Runtime Compiler
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=526916
--- Comment #22 from David Schleef d...@schleef.org 2010-03-30 18:32:23 EDT
---
(In reply to comment #21)
- Installed binary in devel: %{_bindir}/orcc
This binary look like a pre-compiler tool. Is it possible (does it make sense)
for it, to produce 32bit code using x86_64 version ? In the current situation
orc-devel.i686 and orc-devel.x86_64 must be able to be installed together and
the 64bit version of the binary will be taken over the 32bit version.
The output of orcc does not depend on the architecture it was compiled on/for.
You only need one copy.
You need to do: rm -rf %{buildroot}/%{_libdir}/orc. Is it possible to have it
handled upstream at some point ?
Oh bother. These are not supposed to be installed, as they are the testsuite
programs.
--
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.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 526916] Review Request: orc - The Oil Runtime Compiler
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=526916 David Schleef d...@schleef.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||d...@schleef.org --- Comment #19 from David Schleef d...@schleef.org 2010-03-29 17:22:47 EDT --- The library sizes are for non-default configurations that are only intended for embedded use. The standard configuration includes all backends, plus the parser. The sizes listed here sound reasonable. The x86-64 testsuite failure is a real bug. I just fixed it in master, and will be releasing 0.4.4 shortly (todayish?) with the fix (along with a bunch of other fixes). The powerpc-64 bug appears to be a real bug, and it looks like it happens on powerpc-32 as well. I'll look into it after the release. -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 526916] Review Request: orc - The Oil Runtime Compiler
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=526916 --- Comment #18 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) kwiz...@gmail.com 2010-03-25 19:35:43 EDT --- Do we know if this package can build fine on AMD CPU? At least testsuite fails with my X2 4200+ , whereas it worked in the builder: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2076254 -- 8: retq /* compover inplace 4,4,4 */ /* compovera inplace 1,1,1 */ /* compadd inplace 4,4,4 */ XFAIL: exec_opcodes_pixel 1 of 11 tests failed make[4]: *** [check-TESTS] Erreur 1 make[4]: quittant le répertoire « /home/builder/rpmbuild/BUILD/orc-0.4.3/testsuite » make[3]: *** [check-am] Erreur 2 make[3]: quittant le répertoire « /home/builder/rpmbuild/BUILD/orc-0.4.3/testsuite » make[2]: *** [check-recursive] Erreur 1 make[2]: quittant le répertoire « /home/builder/rpmbuild/BUILD/orc-0.4.3/testsuite » make[1]: *** [check-recursive] Erreur 1 make[1]: quittant le répertoire « /home/builder/rpmbuild/BUILD/orc-0.4.3 » make: *** [check] Erreur 2 -- That's probably out of the scope of F-13, but ppc64 at least is failing: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2076263 I don't know if it worth to handle this, given that it's now a secondary arch in Fedora. Do we have more feeback on the library size ? I will do run-time tests with the Schrodinger update tomorrow. -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 526916] Review Request: orc - The Oil Runtime Compiler
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=526916 --- Comment #16 from Fabian Deutsch fabian.deut...@gmx.de 2010-03-18 10:50:21 EDT --- koji task: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2061190 -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 526916] Review Request: orc - The Oil Runtime Compiler
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=526916
--- Comment #15 from Fabian Deutsch fabian.deut...@gmx.de 2010-03-18 10:49:32
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #13)
There are several problems with this package.
- The testsuite is failing
* Most problem seems related to libtool not patched to use /usr/lib64 by
default, so it could be easier to use autoreconf -vif
..
- There is still rpath on produced binaries (at least on x86_64) by disabled
with autoreconf
using autoreconf -vif did the trick.
- building docs produce errors. (missing BR ?)
There are two missing files and another file not processed. I fixed the two
missing files, btut do not know how to fix the version.entities-issue, but does
not seem to be to critical ...
- It's usually better to install with install -p to prevents timestamp change
for headers, doing like:
make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} INSTALL=install -p
if this way is better: why is it not the default?
- rpmlint on installed file isn't quiet:
rpmlint orc
orc.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/liborc-0.4.so.0.0.0 floor
orc.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/liborc-0.4.so.0.0.0 sqrtf
orc.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/liborc-pixel-0.4.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libm.so.6
orc.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/liborc-pixel-0.4.so.0.0.0 /lib64/librt.so.1
orc.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/liborc-float-0.4.so.0.0.0 /lib64/librt.so.1
- liborc misses -lm at link time.
current rpmlint:
[fabi...@proprietary Downloads]$ ls orc-*
orc-0.4.3-2.fc14.i686.rpmorc-debuginfo-0.4.3-2.fc14.i686.rpm
orc-devel-0.4.3-2.fc14.x86_64.rpm
orc-0.4.3-2.fc14.src.rpm orc-debuginfo-0.4.3-2.fc14.x86_64.rpm
orc-doc-0.4.3-2.fc14.i686.rpm
orc-0.4.3-2.fc14.x86_64.rpm orc-devel-0.4.3-2.fc14.i686.rpm
orc-doc-0.4.3-2.fc14.x86_64.rpm
[fabi...@proprietary Downloads]$ rpmlint -v orc*
orc.i686: I: checking
orc.i686: I: checking-url http://code.entropywave.com/projects/orc/ (timeout 10
seconds)
orc.src: I: checking
orc.src: I: checking-url http://code.entropywave.com/projects/orc/ (timeout 10
seconds)
orc.src: I: checking-url
http://code.entropywave.com/download/orc/orc-0.4.3.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds)
orc.x86_64: I: checking
orc.x86_64: I: checking-url http://code.entropywave.com/projects/orc/ (timeout
10 seconds)
orc-debuginfo.i686: I: checking
orc-debuginfo.i686: I: checking-url http://code.entropywave.com/projects/orc/
(timeout 10 seconds)
orc-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking
orc-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking-url http://code.entropywave.com/projects/orc/
(timeout 10 seconds)
orc-devel.i686: I: checking
orc-devel.i686: I: checking-url http://code.entropywave.com/projects/orc/
(timeout 10 seconds)
orc-devel.x86_64: I: checking
orc-devel.x86_64: I: checking-url http://code.entropywave.com/projects/orc/
(timeout 10 seconds)
orc-doc.i686: I: checking
orc-doc.i686: I: checking-url http://code.entropywave.com/projects/orc/
(timeout 10 seconds)
orc-doc.x86_64: I: checking
orc-doc.x86_64: I: checking-url http://code.entropywave.com/projects/orc/
(timeout 10 seconds)
9 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
- Contradiction with README:
- Q: How big is the Orc library?
A: Compiled with only one target (SSE), the library size is about
86 kB uncompressed, or 30 kB compressed. The goal is to keep the
uncompressed size under about 100 kB.
# ls -alh /usr/lib64/liborc-0.4.so.0.0.0
-rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 293K mars 8 23:03 /usr/lib64/liborc-0.4.so.0.0.0
Do we know if this library grown abnormally or that was expected and the
README need to be corrected ?
Good question. I'm sending this question upstream ...
Spec and srpm:
http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/~fabiand/fedora/orc/2/orc.spec
http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/~fabiand/fedora/orc/2/orc-0.4.3-2.fc14.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.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 526916] Review Request: orc - The Oil Runtime Compiler
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=526916 Benjamin Otte o...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||o...@redhat.com --- Comment #17 from Benjamin Otte o...@redhat.com 2010-03-18 17:13:27 EDT --- Adding myself here so I can ebuild gstreamer-plugins-bad-free once this lib has landed. -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 526916] Review Request: orc - The Oil Runtime Compiler
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=526916
Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) kwiz...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||kwiz...@gmail.com
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|kwiz...@gmail.com
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #13 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) kwiz...@gmail.com 2010-03-08
17:22:03 EST ---
There are several problems with this package.
- The testsuite is failing
* Most problem seems related to libtool not patched to use /usr/lib64 by
default, so it could be easier to use autoreconf -vif
* One test is failing because of assembler code (on F-12 x86_64 AMD64)
- There is still rpath on produced binaries (at least on x86_64) by disabled
with autoreconf
- building docs produce errors. (missing BR ?)
- It's usually better to install with install -p to prevents timestamp change
for headers, doing like:
make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} INSTALL=install -p
- rpmlint on installed file isn't quiet:
rpmlint orc
orc.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/liborc-0.4.so.0.0.0 floor
orc.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/liborc-0.4.so.0.0.0 sqrtf
orc.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/liborc-pixel-0.4.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libm.so.6
orc.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/liborc-pixel-0.4.so.0.0.0 /lib64/librt.so.1
orc.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/liborc-float-0.4.so.0.0.0 /lib64/librt.so.1
- liborc misses -lm at link time.
- Contradiction with README:
- Q: How big is the Orc library?
A: Compiled with only one target (SSE), the library size is about
86 kB uncompressed, or 30 kB compressed. The goal is to keep the
uncompressed size under about 100 kB.
# ls -alh /usr/lib64/liborc-0.4.so.0.0.0
-rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 293K mars 8 23:03 /usr/lib64/liborc-0.4.so.0.0.0
Do we know if this library grown abnormally or that was expected and the
README need to be corrected ?
--
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.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 526916] Review Request: orc - The Oil Runtime Compiler
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=526916 Fabian Deutsch fabian.deut...@gmx.de changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||570452 -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 526916] Review Request: orc - The Oil Runtime Compiler
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=526916 --- Comment #12 from Fabian Deutsch fabian.deut...@gmx.de 2010-03-04 06:19:21 EST --- Upstream has just released a new version of schroedinger, so it's time to finisch orc. In the menawhile there was also an update to orc, so here we go: http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/~fabiand/fedora/orc/1/orc.spec http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/~fabiand/fedora/orc/1/orc-0.4.3-1.fc14.src.rpm After the issues with 0.4.2 this release builds fine on koji and just some rpmlint issues (do not understand the timeout, as the site is reachable). Even make check runs fine on x86_64. [make...@proprietary SPECS]$ rpmlint -v orc.spec ../SRPMS/orc-0.4.3-1.fc14.src.rpm ../RPMS/i686/orc-* orc.spec: I: checking-url http://code.entropywave.com/download/orc/orc-0.4.3.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) orc.src: I: checking orc.src: I: checking-url http://code.entropywave.com/projects/orc/ (timeout 10 seconds) orc.src: I: checking-url http://code.entropywave.com/download/orc/orc-0.4.3.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) orc.i686: I: checking orc.i686: I: checking-url http://code.entropywave.com/projects/orc/ (timeout 10 seconds) orc-debuginfo.i686: I: checking orc-debuginfo.i686: I: checking-url http://code.entropywave.com/projects/orc/ (timeout 10 seconds) orc-devel.i686: I: checking orc-devel.i686: I: checking-url http://code.entropywave.com/projects/orc/ (timeout 10 seconds) orc-devel.i686: W: no-documentation orc-doc.i686: I: checking orc-doc.i686: I: checking-url http://code.entropywave.com/projects/orc/ (timeout 10 seconds) 5 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. [make...@proprietary SPECS]$ koji build --scratch dist-f13 ../SRPMS/orc-0.4.3-1.fc14.src.rpm Uploading srpm: ../SRPMS/orc-0.4.3-1.fc14.src.rpm [] 100% 00:00:16 527.57 KiB 31.88 KiB/sec Created task: 2030223 Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2030223 None Watching tasks (this may be safely interrupted)... 2030223 build (dist-f13, orc-0.4.3-1.fc14.src.rpm): open (x86-06.phx2.fedoraproject.org) 2030225 buildArch (orc-0.4.3-1.fc14.src.rpm, i686): free 2030224 buildArch (orc-0.4.3-1.fc14.src.rpm, x86_64): free 2030224 buildArch (orc-0.4.3-1.fc14.src.rpm, x86_64): free - open (x86-02.phx2.fedoraproject.org) 2030225 buildArch (orc-0.4.3-1.fc14.src.rpm, i686): free - open (x86-07.phx2.fedoraproject.org) 2030224 buildArch (orc-0.4.3-1.fc14.src.rpm, x86_64): open (x86-02.phx2.fedoraproject.org) - closed 0 free 2 open 1 done 0 failed 2030225 buildArch (orc-0.4.3-1.fc14.src.rpm, i686): open (x86-07.phx2.fedoraproject.org) - closed 0 free 1 open 2 done 0 failed 2030223 build (dist-f13, orc-0.4.3-1.fc14.src.rpm): open (x86-06.phx2.fedoraproject.org) - closed 0 free 0 open 3 done 0 failed 2030223 build (dist-f13, orc-0.4.3-1.fc14.src.rpm) completed successfully Sigh. :) -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
