[Bug 486804] New: Review Request: libferrisloki - customized build of Loki library from Modern C++ Design for libferris
12:01 a.m.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: libferrisloki - customized build of Loki library from Modern C++
Design for libferris
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486804
Summary: Review Request: libferrisloki - customized build of
Loki library from Modern C++ Design for libferris
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: medium
Priority: low
Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org
ReportedBy: monkeyiq(a)users.sf.net
QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: notting(a)redhat.com, fedora-package-review(a)redhat.com
Estimated Hours: 0.0
Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: http://www.libferris.com/ferrisloki.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.libferris.com/ferrisloki-3.0.2-50021.src.rpm
Description:
A C++ system library for SmartPtr, Singletons, Functors, Factories
and other nice things. This version contains some changes for Linux
and other new items in Extensions.hh
The end result is to get libferrisloki, libferrisstreams, stldb4, libferris
itself and a few other higher level libferris packages into Fedora itself. This
is the base package that all the others rely on.
this is mer first package, and me are seeking a sponsor.
--
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.
2:12 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 486804] Review Request: libferrisloki - customized build of Loki library from Modern C++ Design for libferris
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=486804
Ricky Zhou <rzhou(a)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.
11:39 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 486804] Review Request: libferrisloki - customized build of Loki library from Modern C++ Design for libferris
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=486804
Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael(a)gmx.net> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |bugs.michael(a)gmx.net
--- Comment #1 from Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael(a)gmx.net> 2009-03-16 12:39:17 EDT
---
Might be that I've caught all issues, but a lot of work is needed to bring this
into shape:
* Run "rpmlint -i" on your src.rpm and also on all built packages. Try to fix
as many Warnings and Errors as plausible.
License: GPL
This is not just an invalid value for the "License" tag, it is inaccurate. Some
source files mention "GPLv2+", some the "Boost Software License 1.0".
Others
contain a "Copyright Only" header:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/CopyrightOnly
The "macros/ferrismacros.m4" file contains pieces licenced under the
"LGPLv2+".
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing
There are special guidelines for Sourceforge.net download locations:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#Sourceforge.net
Packager: Ben Martin <monkeyiq(a)users.sourceforge.net>
Don't set this tag. The build-system will do it. In general, be careful with
hardcoding "Packager"/"Vendor" tags in spec files you release. There
are people
who build broken binary rpms, which would appear as if they have been built by
you, because they contain your name in the "Packager" tag. The spec %changelog
is less of a problem in case you wonder.
BuildRequires: gcc-c++
Redundant, as the C++ compiler is available in the minimal build environment:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Exceptions_2
if [ "$SMP" != "" ]; then
(make "MAKE=make -k -j $SMP"; exit 0)
make
else
make
fi
At least with Fedora, you can replace this with just:
make %{?_smp_mflags}
%install
%makeinstall
First command in %install section must be: rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
(or "rm -rf %buildroot" if you prefer the lower case macro everywhere)
make DESTDIR="$RPM_BUILD_ROOT" install
or:
make DESTDIR="$RPM_BUILD_ROOT" INSTALL="install -p"
shall be preferred over %makeinstall.
%files
%defattr(-,root,root,0755)
Doesn't %defattr(-,root,root,-) work?
%doc AUTHORS README COPYING ChangeLog INSTALL
Typically, the standard file "INSTALL" is irrelevant to RPM package users. Here
it is empty even.
%{_libdir}/*
%{_includedir}/*
Package must be split into a main library pkg and a ferrisloki-devel
sub-package, which contains the files needed only for software development
(i.e. the *.so symlink and the headers).
%{_libdir}/* includes too many files it must not include (e.g. the debuginfo
files). Use at most %{_libdir}/*.so.* for the main pkg and %{_libdir}/*.so
for the -devel subpkg.
-rw-r--r-- /usr/lib/libferrisloki.a
-rwxr-xr-x /usr/lib/libferrisloki.la
Don't build/include these.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libr...
-rw-r--r-- /usr/include/FerrisLoki/Extensions.cpp
-rw-r--r-- /usr/include/FerrisLoki/OrderedStatic.cpp
-rw-r--r-- /usr/include/FerrisLoki/SafeFormat.cpp
-rw-r--r-- /usr/include/FerrisLoki/Singleton.cpp
-rw-r--r-- /usr/include/FerrisLoki/SmallObj.cpp
-rw-r--r-- /usr/include/FerrisLoki/SmartPtr.cpp
-rw-r--r-- /usr/include/FerrisLoki/StrongPtr.cpp
Hmm?
* The pkgconfig file ferrisloki.pc is questionable, because it is tuned for
static linking and does a few bad things:
Libs: -L${libdir} -lferrisloki -lsigc-2.0
The shared library
is linked with libsigc-2.0 already. No need to link again.
Requires:
The pkgconfig dependency on "sigc++-2.0" is missing in this field if you really
want it to be a strict dependency - I doubt you want it. It would also add the
proper libsigc++20 CFLAGS and LDFLAGS automatically when running pkg-config,
and you would not need to add them to your .pc file manually.
For platforms older than Fedora 11, the ferrisloki-devel subpackage must
"Requires: libsigc++20-devel", however see below.
Cflags: -I${includedir} -I${includedir}/FerrisLoki
-I${includedir}/FerrisLoki/loki -I/usr/include/sigc++-2.0
-I/usr/lib/sigc++-2.0/include
Why do add two search paths for FerrisLoki and FerrisLoki/loki? There are
several files which include <loki/...>, so the extra search path is not needed.
The sigc++-2.0 related Cflags are redundant, if you would fill in the Requires
field correctly. However, only the boost extension uses sigc++20 headers. And
that extension would need "Requires: boost-devel" in the spec file.
In other words, I don't see why the sigc++ stuff is in the .pc file at all.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
11:41 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 486804] Review Request: libferrisloki - customized build of Loki library from Modern C++ Design for libferris
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486804
--- Comment #2 from Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael(a)gmx.net> 2009-03-16 12:41:32 EDT
---
make DESTDIR="$RPM_BUILD_ROOT" install
or:
make DESTDIR="$RPM_BUILD_ROOT" INSTALL="install -p"
Cut'n'paste error from a file where I made that typo before. Second line must
read:
make DESTDIR="$RPM_BUILD_ROOT" INSTALL="install -p" install
--
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.
4:48 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 486804] Review Request: libferrisloki - customized build of Loki library from Modern C++ Design for libferris
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=486804
--- Comment #3 from Ben Martin <monkeyiq(a)users.sf.net> 2009-03-17 05:48:25 EDT ---
Firstly, thank you for your indepth and very informative comments! A
few issues like not having split out a -devel package I forgot to do
before submitting and apologize for that.
I should mention up front that I've been using this spec on the
openSUSE build system (OBS) to make rpms for Fedora and openSUSE. If
possible I'd like to continue using the same spec in Fedora and in the
OBS to make openSUSE rpms too. I'm not sure if this is possible or
not, but I can always hope.
I've updated the spec file and src.rpm file with changes from your
comments. This should also make the next spec less of a hassle because
I'll have already addressed these comments.
Might be that I've caught all issues, but a lot of work is needed
to bring this
into shape:
* Run "rpmlint -i" on your src.rpm and also on all built packages. Try to fix
as many Warnings and Errors as plausible.
There are still a few issues rpmlint picks up. The main one is how to
use multiple licenses properly.
> License: GPL
This is not just an invalid value for the "License" tag, it is inaccurate.
Some
source files mention "GPLv2+", some the "Boost Software License 1.0".
Others
contain a "Copyright Only" header:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/CopyrightOnly
The "macros/ferrismacros.m4" file contains pieces licenced under the
"LGPLv2+".
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing
OK, I've taken a look at these to see if I could consolidate things (if I owned
copyright on the file & code) but it looks like we'll need these three
liceneses
unless I plan to rewrite some already working code. So now we have:
License: LGPLv2+, Boost, Copyright only
I'm not sure how to chain them though. rpmlint doesn't seem to like comma
separated
and rpmbuild doesn't like multiple tags.
> Source: http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/witme/%{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2
There are special guidelines for Sourceforge.net download locations:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#Sourceforge.net
Excellent. The above URL was one I came up with ages ago, though it is
surprisingly close to the Fedora recommendation. I've updated to fix
this inline with the URL above.
> Packager: Ben Martin <monkeyiq(a)users.sourceforge.net>
Don't set this tag. The build-system will do it. In general, be careful with
hardcoding "Packager"/"Vendor" tags in spec files you release. There
are people
who build broken binary rpms, which would appear as if they have been built by
you, because they contain your name in the "Packager" tag. The spec %changelog
is less of a problem in case you wonder.
Removed. Though I also plan to try to use the same .spec with OBS to
make openSUSE rpms, so I might have to add it back conditionally.
> BuildRequires: gcc-c++
Redundant, as the C++ compiler is available in the minimal build environment:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Exceptions_2
Ah, if this redundancy is OK can we leave it? To build with OBS you
have to include the compiler too so I need that redundant line for the
spec to with on OBS too.
> if [ "$SMP" != "" ]; then
> (make "MAKE=make -k -j $SMP"; exit 0)
> make
> else
> make
> fi
At least with Fedora, you can replace this with just:
make %{?_smp_mflags}
Done. If openSUSE doesn't actually set _smp_mflags I might add some
glue in the header of the spec to set it properly on OBS.
> %install
> %makeinstall
First command in %install section must be: rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
(or "rm -rf %buildroot" if you prefer the lower case macro everywhere)
make DESTDIR="$RPM_BUILD_ROOT" install
or:
make DESTDIR="$RPM_BUILD_ROOT" INSTALL="install -p"
shall be preferred over %makeinstall.
This is one area where I thought using the macro was the golden thing
to do. Changed to the second version with the modification you
included.
> %files
> %defattr(-,root,root,0755)
Doesn't %defattr(-,root,root,-) work?
> %doc AUTHORS README COPYING ChangeLog INSTALL
Typically, the standard file "INSTALL" is irrelevant to RPM package users.
Here
it is empty even.
Fixed.
> %{_libdir}/*
> %{_includedir}/*
Package must be split into a main library pkg and a ferrisloki-devel
sub-package, which contains the files needed only for software development
(i.e. the *.so symlink and the headers).
%{_libdir}/* includes too many files it must not include (e.g. the debuginfo
files). Use at most %{_libdir}/*.so.* for the main pkg and %{_libdir}/*.so
for the -devel subpkg.
> -rw-r--r-- /usr/lib/libferrisloki.a
> -rwxr-xr-x /usr/lib/libferrisloki.la
Don't build/include these.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libr...
> -rw-r--r-- /usr/include/FerrisLoki/Extensions.cpp
> -rw-r--r-- /usr/include/FerrisLoki/OrderedStatic.cpp
> -rw-r--r-- /usr/include/FerrisLoki/SafeFormat.cpp
> -rw-r--r-- /usr/include/FerrisLoki/Singleton.cpp
> -rw-r--r-- /usr/include/FerrisLoki/SmallObj.cpp
> -rw-r--r-- /usr/include/FerrisLoki/SmartPtr.cpp
> -rw-r--r-- /usr/include/FerrisLoki/StrongPtr.cpp
Hmm?
OK I split the package to include a -devel package and distribute the
libdir stuff as mentioned. The strange .cpp files are no longer
packaged.
* The pkgconfig file ferrisloki.pc is questionable, because it is tuned for
static linking and does a few bad things:
> Libs: -L${libdir} -lferrisloki -lsigc-2.0
The shared library is linked with libsigc-2.0 already. No need to link again.
> Requires:
The pkgconfig dependency on "sigc++-2.0" is missing in this field if you
really
want it to be a strict dependency - I doubt you want it. It would also add the
proper libsigc++20 CFLAGS and LDFLAGS automatically when running pkg-config,
and you would not need to add them to your .pc file manually.
For platforms older than Fedora 11, the ferrisloki-devel subpackage must
"Requires: libsigc++20-devel", however see below.
> Cflags: -I${includedir} -I${includedir}/FerrisLoki
> -I${includedir}/FerrisLoki/loki -I/usr/include/sigc++-2.0
> -I/usr/lib/sigc++-2.0/include
Why do add two search paths for FerrisLoki and FerrisLoki/loki? There are
several files which include <loki/...>, so the extra search path is not needed.
The sigc++-2.0 related Cflags are redundant, if you would fill in the Requires
field correctly. However, only the boost extension uses sigc++20 headers. And
that extension would need "Requires: boost-devel" in the spec file.
In other words, I don't see why the sigc++ stuff is in the .pc file at all.
Updated to remove the sigc++ stuff from the cflags and libs in the .pc
and use Requires for both sigc++ and boost instead.
The problem that lead to this is that I have added some extensions to
the libferrisloki library beyond what the mainline Loki library
has. These extensions are in
%{_includedir}/FerrisLoki/*.hh
and over time have grown to include sigc++ and boost support to make
all the higher level libraries that use libferrisloki easier to
write. Of course, if you don't #include any of these extensions then
sigc++ and boost are not strictly needed by libferrisloki. On the
other hand, since I'm the main (sole?) user of libferrisloki just
adding both sigc++ and boost to the requires should make things
cleaner.
--
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.
12:45 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 486804] Review Request: libferrisloki - customized build of Loki library from Modern C++ Design for libferris
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=486804
--- Comment #4 from Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael(a)gmx.net> 2009-03-21 13:45:05 EDT
---
Haven't had a look at the update rpms yet, so just some answers:
If possible I'd like to continue using the same spec in Fedora
and in the OBS to make openSUSE rpms too.
I'm not aware of any policy that disallows this. However, history has shown
that it's more convenient to keep spec files distribution-specific and clean.
Often distribution-independent spec files are expanded with many conditional
sections, which reduce readability and sometime even cause side-effects. This
can get really ugly in places where you must use Fedora-specific macros or
scriptlet fragments. And also in the %changelog.
License: LGPLv2+, Boost, Copyright only
I'm not sure how to chain them though.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Lic...
%makeinstall
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Why_the_.25makeinstal...
--
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.
4:40 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 486804] Review Request: libferrisloki - customized build of Loki library from Modern C++ Design for libferris
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=486804
Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael(a)gmx.net> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flag| |needinfo?(monkeyiq(a)users.sf
| |.net)
--- Comment #5 from Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael(a)gmx.net> 2009-04-13 05:40:04 EDT
---
Please point to the updated 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.
5:08 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 486804] Review Request: libferrisloki - customized build of Loki library from Modern C++ Design for libferris
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=486804
Ben Martin <monkeyiq(a)users.sf.net> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flag|needinfo?(monkeyiq(a)users.sf |
|.net) |
--- Comment #6 from Ben Martin <monkeyiq(a)users.sf.net> 2009-04-13 06:08:48 EDT ---
Sorry about the delay. I moved them to my fuuko subdomain:
http://fuuko.libferris.com/fedora/
Also, since Extensions.cpp/hh are GPLv2+ I added that and metadata comment to
the specfile.
--
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.
6:25 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 486804] Review Request: libferrisloki - customized build of Loki library from Modern C++ Design for libferris
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=486804
--- Comment #7 from Michael Schwendt <mschwendt(a)gmail.com> 2009-06-08 07:25:40 EDT
---
* Currently doesn't even build, because the %files section is unmaintained:
error: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:
/usr/include/FerrisLoki/Extensions.cpp
/usr/include/FerrisLoki/OrderedStatic.cpp
/usr/include/FerrisLoki/SafeFormat.cpp
/usr/include/FerrisLoki/Singleton.cpp
/usr/include/FerrisLoki/SmallObj.cpp
/usr/include/FerrisLoki/SmartPtr.cpp
/usr/include/FerrisLoki/StrongPtr.cpp
/usr/lib/libferrisloki.a
/usr/lib/libferrisloki.la
* It would be extremely helpful (not just during review) if you maintained the
spec %changelog and increased the "Release" value with every update of your
package. It's something you would need to do for future updates anyway, so
early practice would be beneficial.
The latest package (from April 13th) is still ferrisloki-3.0.2-50021.src.rpm
with only two changelog entries from 2001 and 2004. What exactly does the 50021
release value mean?
* Fedora's optflags are used, but duplicated, and an appended -O3 -DNDEBUG
overrides them.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags
* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package
*
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libr...
* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines
* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers
--
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.
1:13 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 486804] Review Request: libferrisloki - customized build of Loki library from Modern C++ Design for libferris
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=486804
Jason Tibbitts <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flag| |needinfo?(monkeyiq(a)users.sf
| |.net)
--- Comment #8 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu> 2009-07-14 14:13:51 EDT ---
It's been over a month since the last comment with no response from the
submitter; I'll close this soon if there's no further progress.
--
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.
8:19 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 486804] Review Request: libferrisloki - customized build of Loki library from Modern C++ Design for libferris
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=486804
Ben Martin <monkeyiq(a)users.sf.net> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flag|needinfo?(monkeyiq(a)users.sf |
|.net) |
--- Comment #9 from Ben Martin <monkeyiq(a)users.sf.net> 2009-07-14 21:19:54 EDT ---
I have updated the sources and spec file, now available at
http://fuuko.libferris.com/fedora/
These are release xxx30. The high starting release number as just what I
happened to be using as the base OBS spec number when I started.
The forced -O3... cflagss should not happen 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.
3:12 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 486804] Review Request: libferrisloki - customized build of Loki library from Modern C++ Design for libferris
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=486804
Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka(a)ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |mtasaka(a)ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp
--- Comment #10 from Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka(a)ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> 2009-09-02
16:12:31 EDT ---
Some notes:
* Versioning
- Well, I cannot understand why your spec file has excessively
large release number and I don't think this large release
number is needed.
If this release number comes from some reasons unrelated to
Fedora, please reset this.
- Also, please consider to use %{?_dist} tag.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/DistTag
* Licensing
- The license tag should simply be "GPLv2+".
src/Extensions.cpp is under GPLv2+, libferrisloki.so uses
.libs/Extensions.o, which renders libferrisloki.so to be under GPLv2+,
so other license tag is useless.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
192 libtool: compile: g++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I.. -I. -I. -I.. -I..
-I/usr/include -I./../include/FerrisLoki -I/usr/local/include
-I/usr/include/sigc++-2.0 -I/usr/lib/sigc++-2.0/include -O2 -g -pipe -Wall
-Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector
--param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m32 -march=i686 -mtune=atom
-fasynchronous-unwind-tables -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2
-fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m32 -march=i686
-mtune=atom -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -MT Extensions.lo -MD -MP -MF
.deps/Extensions.Tpo -c Extensions.cpp -fPIC -DPIC -o .libs/Extensions.o
213 libtool: link: g++ -shared -nostdlib
/usr/lib/gcc/i686-redhat-linux/4.4.1/../../../crti.o
/usr/lib/gcc/i686-redhat-linux/4.4.1/crtbeginS.o .libs/Extensions.o
.libs/OrderedStatic.o .libs/SafeFormat.o .libs/Singleton.o .libs/SmallObj.o
.libs/SmartPtr.o .libs/StrongPtr.o -lsigc-2.0
-L/usr/lib/gcc/i686-redhat-linux/4.4.1
-L/usr/lib/gcc/i686-redhat-linux/4.4.1/../../.. -lstdc++ -lm -lc -lgcc_s
/usr/lib/gcc/i686-redhat-linux/4.4.1/crtendS.o
/usr/lib/gcc/i686-redhat-linux/4.4.1/../../../crtn.o -m32 -march=i686
-mtune=atom -Wl,-O1 -Wl,--hash-style=both -Wl,-soname -Wl,libferrisloki.so.3
-o .libs/libferrisloki.so.3.0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------
* BuildRoot
- BuildRoot currently used in your spec file is not valid
on Fedora:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
! Note
On currently supported Fedora version (Fedora 10/11/12), you can
simply BuildRoot line completely.
* URL
- Perhaps http://witme.sourceforge.net/ is better?
* BuildRequires
- BR: gcc-c++ is redundant:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2
* About %build
- From build.log:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
44 + ./configure --build=i386-redhat-linux-gnu
--host=i386-redhat-linux-gnu --target=i686-redhat-linux-gnu --program-prefix=
--prefix=/usr --exec-prefix=/usr --bindir=/usr/bin --sbindir=/usr/sbin
--sysconfdir=/etc --datadir=/usr/share --includedir=/usr/include
--libdir=/usr/lib --libexecdir=/usr/libexec --localstatedir=/var
--sharedstatedir=/var/lib --mandir=/usr/share/man --infodir=/usr/share/info
--with-sigcxx-2x=yes
45 configure: WARNING: unrecognized options: --with-sigcxx-2x
-------------------------------------------------------------------
is "--with-sigcxx-2x" needed?
- tarball contains include/FerrisLoki/loki/, i.e. this package uses
internal copy of loki, however on Fedora loki is already packaged:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/loki-lib
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=4740
This package (ferrisloki) should be patched to use system-wide loki-lib
and include/FerrisLoki/loki/ should be removed at %prep.
* %files
- Fedora strongly suggests not to include static archives (.a files)
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libr...
- The directory %{_includedir}/FerrisLoki itself is not owned by
any packages:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ow...
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/UnownedDirectories#Forgetting_to...
* pkgconfig file
- ferrisloki.pc says (on i686, rawhide):
---------------------------------------------------
6 Name: ferrisloki
7 Description: Version of standard loki library with extensions.
8 Version: 3.0.2
9 Requires:
10 Libs: -L${libdir} -lferrisloki -lsigc-2.0
11 Cflags: -I${includedir} -I${includedir}/FerrisLoki
-I${includedir}/FerrisLoki/loki -I/usr/include/sigc++-2.0
-I/usr/lib/sigc++-2.0/include
---------------------------------------------------
This should be changed to:
---------------------------------------------------
Name: ferrisloki
Description: Version of standard loki library with extensions.
Version: 3.0.2
Requires: sigc++-2.0
Libs: -L${libdir} -lferrisloki
Cflags: -I${includedir}/FerrisLoki -I${includedir}/FerrisLoki/loki
---------------------------------------------------
* Requires (for -devel subpackage)
- For example FerrisLoki/BoostExtensions.hh contains:
---------------------------------------------------
53 #include <boost/config.hpp>
54 #include <boost/mpl/integral_c.hpp>
55 #include <boost/mpl/integral_c_tag.hpp>
---------------------------------------------------
This package means that ferrisloki-devel should have "Requires:
boost-devel".
* Requires between subpackages
- Usually the dependency between packages rebuilt from the same srpm should
have exact EVR (Epoch-Version-Release).
i.e. ferrislock-devel should have "Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}",
not just "Requires: %{name} >= %{version}":
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package
--
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.
6:02 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 486804] Review Request: libferrisloki - customized build of Loki library from Modern C++ Design for libferris
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=486804
--- Comment #11 from Michael Schwendt <mschwendt(a)gmail.com> 2009-12-14 07:02:12 EDT
---
Once again, haven't had another look at the pkg since previously mentioned
issues are still present and Mamoru has added a review.
Just about the licensing:
* Licensing
- The license tag should simply be "GPLv2+".
src/Extensions.cpp is under GPLv2+, libferrisloki.so uses
.libs/Extensions.o, which renders libferrisloki.so to be under GPLv2+,
so other license tag is useless.
* Relicensing of source files to GPLv2+ is neither automatic nor implicit. It
would be best to make the GPLv2+ licensing explicit in all source files where
license conversion is possible. Even the copied LGPLv2+ m4 macros could be
converted to GPLv2+ by following the instructions in the LGPL appendix.
However:
* The BoostExtensions.hh file, which applies its own license, is included in
the built rpms. Hence:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Lice...
* About the several C++ source files with very short licensing terms or just
copyright messages (e.g. LockingPtr.h), please don't take these issues lightly.
See what is included in the built rpms. Some of the files (albeit from Loki
lib) explicitly refer to "MIT" licensing. Several other files, used in
ferrisloki (e.g. SmallObj.cpp) apply terms that look like
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MIT#Old_Style
instead, i.e. more than a "Copyright Only" header even if it doesn't
mention
"MIT" anywhere.
Simply ignoring such licensing issues in the Fedora package "License:" tag
would be wrong. In particular, what I don't feel good about is this:
| provided that [...] both that copyright notice and this
| permission notice appear in supporting documentation.
The 2nd example on the linked "Copyright Only" Fedora Licensing page wants
copyright notices "to remain" in documentation. Vague enough already. These
terms, however, can be read as requiring them to appear in supporting
documentation. Compare with the MIT#Old_Style pointed at above. That is more
than what the GPL requires. Those files could not be converted to GPL without
the permission of the original authors, as the requirement where to put
copyright notices and additional terms would be some sort of sublicensing,
which would be illegal with the GPL.
--
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.
7:11 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 486804] Review Request: libferrisloki - customized build of Loki library from Modern C++ Design for libferris
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=486804
--- Comment #12 from Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka(a)ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> 2009-12-14
08:11:19 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #11)
Once again, haven't had another look at the pkg since previously
mentioned
issues are still present and Mamoru has added a review.
Just about the licensing:
> * Licensing
> - The license tag should simply be "GPLv2+".
> src/Extensions.cpp is under GPLv2+, libferrisloki.so uses
> .libs/Extensions.o, which renders libferrisloki.so to be under GPLv2+,
> so other license tag is useless.
* Relicensing of source files to GPLv2+ is neither automatic nor implicit. It
would be best to make the GPLv2+ licensing explicit in all source files where
license conversion is possible.
- We always can it and there is no problem.
Even the copied LGPLv2+ m4 macros could be
converted to GPLv2+ by following the instructions in the LGPL appendix.
However:
* The BoostExtensions.hh file, which applies its own license, is included in
the built rpms. Hence:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Lice...
* About the several C++ source files with very short licensing terms or just
copyright messages (e.g. LockingPtr.h), please don't take these issues lightly.
See what is included in the built rpms. Some of the files (albeit from Loki
lib) explicitly refer to "MIT" licensing. Several other files, used in
ferrisloki (e.g. SmallObj.cpp) apply terms that look like
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MIT#Old_Style
instead, i.e. more than a "Copyright Only" header even if it doesn't
mention
"MIT" anywhere.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Lic...
Quoted:
If your package contains files which are under multiple, distinct, and
*independent* licenses, then the spec must reflect this by using "and" as a
separator.
The relation between MIT and GPL is not independent.
Simply ignoring such licensing issues in the Fedora package
"License:" tag
would be wrong. In particular, what I don't feel good about is this:
| provided that [...] both that copyright notice and this
| permission notice appear in supporting documentation.
The 2nd example on the linked "Copyright Only" Fedora Licensing page wants
copyright notices "to remain" in documentation. Vague enough already.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MIT#Old_Style_with_legal_disclaimer
Quoted:
and that both that
copyright notice and this permission notice appear in supporting
documentation,
--
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.
7:32 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 486804] Review Request: libferrisloki - customized build of Loki library from Modern C++ Design for libferris
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=486804
--- Comment #13 from Michael Schwendt <mschwendt(a)gmail.com> 2009-12-14 08:32:16 EDT
---
We always can it and there is no problem.
We can always do what?
Such a legal disclaimer is not found in the files.
As I pointed out before:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MIT#Old_Style
--
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.
9:15 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 486804] Review Request: libferrisloki - customized build of Loki library from Modern C++ Design for libferris
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=486804
--- Comment #14 from Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka(a)ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> 2009-12-14
10:15:05 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #13)
Such a legal disclaimer is not found in the files.
As I pointed out before:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MIT#Old_Style
If you insist that the license you quoted is not MIT, ask
spot.
--
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.
11:53 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 486804] Review Request: libferrisloki - customized build of Loki library from Modern C++ Design for libferris
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=486804
--- Comment #15 from Michael Schwendt <mschwendt(a)gmail.com> 2009-12-14 12:53:44 EDT
---
I have no idea what you're talking about. To not answer my brief question
doesn't help.
[...]
In comment 11, I've mentioned that _some_ of the source file headers in the
build rpm explicitly give the licensing the name "MIT License",
$ grep MIT *
CachedFactory.h:// Code covered by the MIT License
DataGenerators.h:// Code covered by the MIT License
Factory.h:// Code covered by the MIT License
Key.h:// Code covered by the MIT License
SPCachedFactory.h:// Code covered by the MIT License
StrongPtr.h:// The copyright on this file is protected under the terms of the
MIT license.
while other files apply a nameless license as in:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MIT#Old_Style
Due to even different licenses applied to other files in the binary rpm,
currently the following guideline applies:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Lic...
==> License: GPLv2+ and MIT and Boost
Compatibility with GPL is given by both MIT and Boost, but there is no
automatic/implict conversion of the licensing of either The Program or
individual files included in the binary rpms. Further, MIT#Old_Style does not
explicitly permit sublicensing. And with that we're back at older comments in
this ticket.
--
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.
7:55 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 486804] Review Request: libferrisloki - customized build of Loki library from Modern C++ Design for libferris
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=486804
Jason Tibbitts <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |CLOSED
Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |201449(FE-DEADREVIEW)
Resolution| |NOTABUG
Last Closed| |2010-11-01 20:55:53
--- Comment #16 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu> 2010-11-01 20:55:53 EDT ---
There were several constructive comments made before the licensing discussion
broke out, and it's been well over a year with no response from the submitter,
so I'm just going to go ahead and close this.
--
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.
4958
days inactive
5576
days old
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
17 comments
1 participants
participants (1)
-
Red Hat Bugzilla