[Bug 717748] Review Request: lttng-ust - LTTng Userspace Tracer library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717748 RKP rupeshkp...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rupeshkp...@gmail.com --- Comment #30 from RKP rupeshkp...@gmail.com --- I am also getting the same error as in comment. I am using lttng .216 on linux 2.6.33.7. I tried the solution in site https://bugs.lttng.org/issues/321 but it did not help. Any way out of this issue? -- 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 717748] Review Request: lttng-ust - LTTng Userspace Tracer library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717748 --- Comment #29 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- lttng-ust-2.0.4-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. -- 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 717748] Review Request: lttng-ust - LTTng Userspace Tracer library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717748 --- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- lttng-ust-2.0.4-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/lttng-ust-2.0.4-2.el6 -- 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 717748] Review Request: lttng-ust - LTTng Userspace Tracer library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717748 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-07-11 19:59:29 --- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- lttng-ust-2.0.4-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- 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 717748] Review Request: lttng-ust - LTTng Userspace Tracer library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717748 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- lttng-ust-2.0.4-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository. -- 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 717748] Review Request: lttng-ust - LTTng Userspace Tracer library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717748 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED -- 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 717748] Review Request: lttng-ust - LTTng Userspace Tracer library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717748 --- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- lttng-ust-2.0.4-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/lttng-ust-2.0.4-2.fc17 -- 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 717748] Review Request: lttng-ust - LTTng Userspace Tracer library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717748 --- Comment #24 from Yannick Brosseau yannick.bross...@gmail.com --- For those interested, I've posted a review request for LTTng-tools in bug #834481 -- 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 717748] Review Request: lttng-ust - LTTng Userspace Tracer library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717748 --- Comment #23 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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 717748] Review Request: LTTng-UST - LTTng Userspace Tracer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717748
--- Comment #12 from Scott Tsai scottt...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to comment #11)
Yannick,
After your libtoolize change I can now build the packages successfully.
I suspect you didn't see the failture from comment #9 before because you were
using rpmbuild locally and you already have a copy of the lttng-ust libraries
in /usr/lib6{,64}. (Having the libraries in the default linker search path is
equivalent to helping ld find them via -rpath-link.)
Comments on the .spec file follows:
1. License should be LGPLv2 and GPLv2
liblttng-ust-ctl/ustctl.c is GPLv2 only and is used to build
liblttng-ust-ctl.so. ust-ctl.h is also GPLv2 only and shipped in the -devel
package.
The assertion in the COPYING file that ustctl.c is only used by lttng-sessiond
is not true when we ship it in a library with a public header.
BTW, lttng-ust being LGPLv2 only precludes using it with
the {,L}LGPLv3 libraries from Samba, which is unfortunate.
2. BuildRequires userspace-rcu-devel = 0.6.6
-BuildRequires: pkgconfig libuuid-devel userspace-rcu-devel texinfo gcc-c++
systemtap-sdt-devel
+BuildRequires: libuuid-devel texinfo systemtap-sdt-devel
+BuildRequires: userspace-rcu-devel = 0.6.6
lttng-ust's configure.ac wants userspace-rcu = 0.6.6 and
since the older userspace-rcu-0.4.1 has been in Fedora since Feb 2011
having this versioned build requires is easier for users rebuilding this RPM
locally.
Remove gcc-c++ from BuildRequires per
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2.
Also remove pkgconfig from BuildRequires since it's not actually used in the
build process.
Note that installing lttng-ust.pc doesn't require pkgconfig. The pkgconfig
related depencies in -devel would still be automatically picked up by rpmbuild.
3. Unless you're targetting EPEL5, remove the BuildRoot tag, the %clean section
and the second %defattr() in the %files -n %{name}-devel section.
Per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag:
-BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-build
-%clean
-rm -rf %buildroot
%files -n %{name}-devel
-%defattr(-,root,root)
%{_bindir}/lttng-gen-tp
The last point in particular is mostly to make the fedora-review tool happy.
4. ExclusiveArch and arm
From a quick reading of configure.ac and the git logs, I believe lttng-ust does
support the ARM architecture. I recommend just removing the ExclusiveArch line
unless you have a good reason.
5. I recommend adding a comment in the .spec on why --with-java-jdk isn't
enabled:
%configure --docdir=%{_docdir}/%{name} --disable-static --with-sdt
+# --with-java-jdk
+# Java support was disabled in lttng-ust's stable-2.0 branch upstream in
+#
http://git.lttng.org/?p=lttng-ust.git;a=commit;h=655a0d112540df3001f9823cd3b331b8254eb2aa
+# We can revisit enabling this when the next major version is released.
+
make %{?_smp_mflags} V=1
6. Use quotes consistently for %buildroot like other RPM directory name macros
%install
-make DESTDIR=%buildroot install
-rm -vf %buildroot%{_libdir}/*.la
+make DESTDIR=%{buildroot} install
+rm -vf %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/*.la
%post -p /sbin/ldconfig
%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig
7. Upstream recently released lttng-ust-2.0.4
I looked at the git log and suspect we'd want to pick up the various deadlock
fixes.
I'll approve this review once the above points are addressed.
On a separate note, while performing this reivew I tried to run the code in the
tests/ directory (the few that were not disabled upstream) and the example
shipped as documentation. But since we don't lttng-tools and the log viewers
packaged, I was only able to verify that the sample and test programs can be
built and run but can't actually see the traces.
Do you intend to package lttng-tools nad the log viewers?
--
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 717748] Review Request: LTTng-UST - LTTng Userspace Tracer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717748
--- Comment #13 from Yannick Brosseau yannick.bross...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to comment #12)
(In reply to comment #11)
Yannick,
After your libtoolize change I can now build the packages successfully.
I suspect you didn't see the failture from comment #9 before because you
were using rpmbuild locally and you already have a copy of the lttng-ust
libraries in /usr/lib6{,64}. (Having the libraries in the default linker
search path is equivalent to helping ld find them via -rpath-link.)
Yes, I also think that could have been the problem. I did a complete clean of
lttng-ust before redoing this package.
Comments on the .spec file follows:
1. License should be LGPLv2 and GPLv2
liblttng-ust-ctl/ustctl.c is GPLv2 only and is used to build
liblttng-ust-ctl.so. ust-ctl.h is also GPLv2 only and shipped in the -devel
package.
OK
Do you think it would be more appropriate to put it into a separate package?
BTW, lttng-ust being LGPLv2 only precludes using it with
the {,L}LGPLv3 libraries from Samba, which is unfortunate.
From https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility
I don't think its a problem to use LTTng-Ust with LGPLV3 application or lib.
2. BuildRequires userspace-rcu-devel = 0.6.6
-BuildRequires: pkgconfig libuuid-devel userspace-rcu-devel texinfo gcc-c++
systemtap-sdt-devel
+BuildRequires: libuuid-devel texinfo systemtap-sdt-devel
+BuildRequires: userspace-rcu-devel = 0.6.6
Good point, forgot that one.
Remove gcc-c++ from BuildRequires per
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2.
Also remove pkgconfig from BuildRequires since it's not actually used in the
build process.
Note that installing lttng-ust.pc doesn't require pkgconfig. The pkgconfig
related depencies in -devel would still be automatically picked up by
rpmbuild.
3. Unless you're targetting EPEL5, remove the BuildRoot tag, the %clean
section and the second %defattr() in the %files -n %{name}-devel section.
OK
4. ExclusiveArch and arm
From a quick reading of configure.ac and the git logs, I believe lttng-ust
does support the ARM architecture. I recommend just removing the
ExclusiveArch line unless you have a good reason.
I'll review the list of supported arch and replace it by an explicit
ExcludeArch if necessary.
5. I recommend adding a comment in the .spec on why --with-java-jdk isn't
enabled:
OK
6. Use quotes consistently for %buildroot like other RPM directory name
macros
OK
7. Upstream recently released lttng-ust-2.0.4
I looked at the git log and suspect we'd want to pick up the various
deadlock fixes.
Yes, good catch, we want those fixes.
I'll approve this review once the above points are addressed.
On a separate note, while performing this reivew I tried to run the code in
the tests/ directory (the few that were not disabled upstream) and the
example shipped as documentation. But since we don't lttng-tools and the
log viewers packaged, I was only able to verify that the sample and test
programs can be built and run but can't actually see the traces.
Do you intend to package lttng-tools nad the log viewers?
Yes, I intend to do lttng-tools right after finishing LTTng-UST.
I plan to do babeltrace soon after, when the 1.0 release is done. (Which should
be in a couple of weeks max.)
--
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 717748] Review Request: LTTng-UST - LTTng Userspace Tracer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717748 --- Comment #14 from Scott Tsai scottt...@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #13) 1. License should be LGPLv2 and GPLv2 OK Do you think it would be more appropriate to put it into a separate package? No, I think the existing arrangement is fine. There are many packages with LGPLxx and GPLxx in the license field in Fedora. I just always want to make a good faith effort on documenting the license during package review. 4. ExclusiveArch and arm I'll review the list of supported arch and replace it by an explicit ExcludeArch if necessary. ok. For your convenience, I've uploaded the .spec with my recommended changes here: http://scottt.tw/fedora/lttng-ust.spec After you update your .spec I'll do a quick diff against that and I think we're good. -- 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 717748] Review Request: LTTng-UST - LTTng Userspace Tracer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717748 --- Comment #15 from Yannick Brosseau yannick.bross...@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #14) New version: SPEC: http://www.dorsal.polymtl.ca/~ybrosseau/fedora/SPECS/lttng-ust.spec SRPMS: http://www.dorsal.polymtl.ca/~ybrosseau/fedora/SRPMS/lttng-ust-2.0.3-1.fc17.src.rpm I've updated to 2.0.4. Was also missing a reference to MIT licence for some headers. -- 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 717748] Review Request: LTTng-UST - LTTng Userspace Tracer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717748 --- Comment #16 from Yannick Brosseau yannick.bross...@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #15) (In reply to comment #14) New version: SPEC: http://www.dorsal.polymtl.ca/~ybrosseau/fedora/SPECS/lttng-ust.spec SRPMS: http://www.dorsal.polymtl.ca/~ybrosseau/fedora/SRPMS/lttng-ust-2.0.3-1.fc17. src.rpm Sorry, previous URL for SRPM was wrong... SPEC: http://www.dorsal.polymtl.ca/~ybrosseau/fedora/SPECS/lttng-ust.spec SRPMS: http://www.dorsal.polymtl.ca/~ybrosseau/fedora/SRPMS/lttng-ust-2.0.4-1.fc17.src.rpm -- 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 717748] Review Request: LTTng-UST - LTTng Userspace Tracer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717748
Scott Tsai scottt...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #17 from Scott Tsai scottt...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to comment #16)
Yannick, in your latest .spe, userspace-rcu-devel is listed twice in
BuildRequires.
Formal review assuming that fixed follows:
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
C/C++
[x]: MUST Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: MUST ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: MUST Package contains no static executables.
[x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
[x]: MUST Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if
present.
Generic
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[x]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: 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 is included in %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[-]: MUST Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. (EPEL5)
Note: Only applicable for EL-5
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint lttng-ust-2.0.3-1.fc18.src.rpm
lttng-ust.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tracepoints - trace
points, trace-points, contraception
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
rpmlint lttng-ust-debuginfo-2.0.3-1.fc18.i686.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint lttng-ust-2.0.3-1.fc18.i686.rpm
lttng-ust.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tracepoints - trace
points, trace-points, contraception
lttng-ust.i686: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/liblttng-ust-ctl.so.0.0.0
exit@GLIBC_2.0
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
rpmlint lttng-ust-devel-2.0.3-1.fc18.i686.rpm
lttng-ust-devel.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US userspace - user
space, user-space, users pace
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
The tracepoint should be allowed in the description.
liblttng-ust-ctl calling exit() is fine.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
MD5SUM this package : ff336f47ff54e8147bd892940b495785
MD5SUM upstream package : ff336f47ff54e8147bd892940b495785
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in
[Bug 717748] Review Request: LTTng-UST - LTTng Userspace Tracer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717748 Yannick Brosseau yannick.bross...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review+ |fedora-review? --- Comment #18 from Yannick Brosseau yannick.bross...@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #17) (In reply to comment #16) Yannick, in your latest .spe, userspace-rcu-devel is listed twice in BuildRequires. Fixed. lttng-ust-devel.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US userspace - user space, user-space, users pace 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. The tracepoint should be allowed in the description. liblttng-ust-ctl calling exit() is fine. And I filed a bug report upstream to ask if its possible to get rid of it. https://bugs.lttng.org/issues/267 Approved. Thanks! -- 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 717748] Review Request: LTTng-UST - LTTng Userspace Tracer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717748 Scott Tsai scottt...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #19 from Scott Tsai scottt...@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #18) I think you meant to change the fedora-cvs flag to ? and not the fedora-review flag (which should stay at + for a successful review). You'll want to post a new package scm request snippet formatted like those on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_SCM_admin_requests#New_Packages -- 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 717748] Review Request: LTTng-UST - LTTng Userspace Tracer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717748 Yannick Brosseau yannick.bross...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #20 from Yannick Brosseau yannick.bross...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: lttng-ust Short Description: LTTng Userspace Tracer library Owners: greenscientist Branches: f17 el6 InitialCC: -- 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 717748] Review Request: LTTng-UST - LTTng Userspace Tracer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717748 --- Comment #21 from Yannick Brosseau yannick.bross...@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #19) (In reply to comment #18) I think you meant to change the fedora-cvs flag to ? and not the fedora-review flag (which should stay at + for a successful review). You'll want to post a new package scm request snippet formatted like those on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_SCM_admin_requests#New_Packages Yes, I think I miss handled something when I have answered you. -- 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 717748] Review Request: LTTng-UST - LTTng Userspace Tracer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717748 --- Comment #22 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- SCM request name and Summary name don't match, please correct. -- 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 717748] Review Request: lttng-ust - LTTng Userspace Tracer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717748 Scott Tsai scottt...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: LTTng-UST - |Review Request: lttng-ust - |LTTng Userspace Tracer |LTTng Userspace Tracer -- 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 717748] Review Request: lttng-ust - LTTng Userspace Tracer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717748 Scott Tsai scottt...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? -- 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 717748] Review Request: lttng-ust - LTTng Userspace Tracer library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717748 Yannick Brosseau yannick.bross...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: lttng-ust - |Review Request: lttng-ust - |LTTng Userspace Tracer |LTTng Userspace Tracer ||library -- 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 717748] Review Request: LTTng-UST - LTTng Userspace Tracer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717748 Yannick Brosseau yannick.bross...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: UST - LTTng |Review Request: LTTng-UST - |Userspace Tracer|LTTng Userspace Tracer -- 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 717748] Review Request: LTTng-UST - LTTng Userspace Tracer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717748
--- Comment #9 from Scott Tsai scottt...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to comment #8)
Building on F17 fails for me with:
/bin/sh ../../libtool --tag=CC --mode=link gcc -Wall -O2 -g -pipe -Wall
-Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector
--param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic -Wl,-z,relro -o hello hello.o
tp.o ../../liblttng-ust/liblttng-ust.la -lurcu-bp -lurcu-bp -luuid -lpthread
-ldl
libtool: link: DIE_RPATH_DIE=/usr/lib64: gcc -Wall -O2 -g -pipe -Wall
-Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector
--param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic -Wl,-z -Wl,relro -o .libs/hello
hello.o tp.o ../../liblttng-ust/.libs/liblttng-ust.so -lurcu-bp -luuid
-lpthread -ldl
/usr/bin/ld: warning: liblttng-ust-tracepoint.so.0, needed by
../../liblttng-ust/.libs/liblttng-ust.so, not found (try using -rpath or
-rpath-link)
../../liblttng-ust/.libs/liblttng-ust.so: undefined reference to
`init_tracepoint'
../../liblttng-ust/.libs/liblttng-ust.so: undefined reference to
`__tracepoint_probe_register'
../../liblttng-ust/.libs/liblttng-ust.so: undefined reference to
`exit_tracepoint'
../../liblttng-ust/.libs/liblttng-ust.so: undefined reference to
`__tracepoint_probe_unregister'
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
make[3]: *** [hello] Error 1
make[3]: Leaving directory
`/home/scottt/work/lttng/fedora/lttng-ust-2.0.3/tests/hello'
Since:
1. ld is performing a non-shared, non relocatable link for .libs/hello
2. We patched libtool to get rid of RPATH
3. hello.o requires liblttng-ust.so which in turn requires
liblttng-ust-tracepoint.so.0
We need to either pass the directory containing liblttng-ust-tracepoint.so.0 as
-rpath-link or specify liblttng-ust-tracepoint.so as an input to ld.
The following snippet in lttnt-ust.spec would accomplish the later:
+# link all dependent libs
+#sed -i 's|^link_all_deplibs=no|link_all_deplibs=unknown|g' libtool
+
+make %{?_smp_mflags} V=1
%install
make DESTDIR=%buildroot install
Yannick, could you build actually build without a patch to this effect?
--
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 717748] Review Request: LTTng-UST - LTTng Userspace Tracer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717748 --- Comment #10 from Yannick Brosseau yannick.bross...@gmail.com --- I was able to build it without the patch, but now I'm trying with koji and targeting F17 and it fail there. I'll investigate and post a new version. -- 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 717748] Review Request: LTTng-UST - LTTng Userspace Tracer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717748
--- Comment #11 from Yannick Brosseau yannick.bross...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to comment #9)
(In reply to comment #8)
Building on F17 fails for me with:
+# link all dependent libs
+#sed -i 's|^link_all_deplibs=no|link_all_deplibs=unknown|g' libtool
+
+make %{?_smp_mflags} V=1
%install
make DESTDIR=%buildroot install
Yannick, could you build actually build without a patch to this effect?
I've updated the files, can you try again?
Now the package reinitialize the libtool script instead of doing a series of
sed.
--
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
