* Early-warning system => "binutils" was closed WONTFIX: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/556040 I may need some backup in case the reopened ticket will be ignored.
* Bugzilla status for packages violating the Static Library guidelines: http://mschwendt.fedorapeople.org/staticbugstat.html
acl 556036 -> CLOSED atlas 556037 -> CLOSED attr 556038 -> CLOSED audit 556039 -> CLOSED binutils 556040 brltty 556041 Canna 556034 -> CLOSED cdparanoia 547682 -> CLOSED comedilib 556043 dnssec-tools 556044 e2fsprogs 545144 expat 556046 -> CLOSED fftw2 556047 file 556048 -> CLOSED gcc 556049 gdbm 556050 ghostscript 556051 -> CLOSED gnutls 556052 -> CLOSED gpsim 556053 gtk+extra 556054 -> CLOSED hpic 556055 -> CLOSED isdn4k-utils 556056 js 556057 -> CLOSED ldns 556058 -> CLOSED libaio 556059 -> CLOSED libannodex 556060 -> CLOSED libbtctl 556061 libcaca 556062 libcddb 556063 -> CLOSED libcdio 556064 -> CLOSED libcmml 556065 libdnet 556066 libevent 556067 libftdi 556068 -> CLOSED libnl 556069 liboggz 556070 -> CLOSED libotr 556071 librx 556072 -> CLOSED libsemanage 556073 -> CLOSED libsndfile 556074 libstatgrab 556075 libtranslate 556076 libtwin 556077 libuninameslist 556078 -> CLOSED libxslt 556079 link-grammar 556080 linux-atm 556081 linuxwacom 556082 -> CLOSED lockdev 556083 -> CLOSED meanwhile 556084 -> CLOSED mpich2 545149 -> CLOSED munipack 556086 nfs-utils-lib 556087 numactl 556088 opencdk 556089 openldap 556090 -> CLOSED proj 556091 python 556092 -> CLOSED QuantLib 556035 -> CLOSED rubberband 556093 shapelib 556094 -> CLOSED syck 556095 sysfsutils 556096 -> CLOSED texlive 556097 -> CLOSED torque 556098 util-vserver 556099 xbsql 556100 -> CLOSED xen 556101 xfsprogs 556102 xmlsec1 556103 xqilla 562566
On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 15:52:13 +0100, I wrote:
- Early-warning system => "binutils" was closed WONTFIX: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/556040 I may need some backup in case the reopened ticket will be ignored.
Amazing how responsive some maintainers can be if they want to close something as WONTFIX or NOTABUG together with a slap into the face.
"They don't make any sense for binutils" is all what Jakub Jelinek added about the current Fedora Packaging Guidelines.
Wrong. Certainly binutils-devel could split off its static libraries into a binutils-static package, so anything other than itself must follow the guidelines and "BuildRequires: binutils-static".
$ repoquery --whatrequires libbfd-2.19.51.0.14-34.fc12.so binutils-0:2.19.51.0.14-34.fc12.i686 $ repoquery --whatrequires libopcodes-2.19.51.0.14-34.fc12.so binutils-0:2.19.51.0.14-34.fc12.i686
On 9.2.2010 17:01, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 15:52:13 +0100, I wrote:
- Early-warning system => "binutils" was closed WONTFIX: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/556040 I may need some backup in case the reopened ticket will be ignored.
Amazing how responsive some maintainers can be if they want to close something as WONTFIX or NOTABUG together with a slap into the face.
"They don't make any sense for binutils" is all what Jakub Jelinek added about the current Fedora Packaging Guidelines.
Indeed, surprising:)
I've reopened again, let's see what explanation we will get (if any).
Milos
On 02/09/2010 05:11 PM, Milos Jakubicek wrote:
On 9.2.2010 17:01, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 15:52:13 +0100, I wrote:
- Early-warning system => "binutils" was closed WONTFIX: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/556040 I may need some backup in case the reopened ticket will be ignored.
Amazing how responsive some maintainers can be if they want to close something as WONTFIX or NOTABUG together with a slap into the face.
"They don't make any sense for binutils" is all what Jakub Jelinek added about the current Fedora Packaging Guidelines.
If there is something which doesn't make sense, then it's their rationale:
* They already ships shared libs.
* Unless packages already apply special preparations for static linkage against binutils' libraries, these package already will be dynamically linked against binutils' libraries. => In most cases, ABI breakages will already happen, whether or not they ship their libs in monolytic or static packaging.
* The number of users of binutils' libraries is very small (I would guess << 10). So, should a static/devel spilt have any impact at all, then the impact would a one time change to very few packages.
Indeed, surprising:)
Really? I can't find anything surprising in this response at all.
It's a feature: "experience the contact with RH devs" used to be advertised as part of the "Great Fedora experience" ;)
Ralf
On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 18:41:19 +0100, Ralf wrote:
- Early-warning system => "binutils" was closed WONTFIX: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/556040 I may need some backup in case the reopened ticket will be ignored.
Amazing how responsive some maintainers can be if they want to close something as WONTFIX or NOTABUG together with a slap into the face.
"They don't make any sense for binutils" is all what Jakub Jelinek added about the current Fedora Packaging Guidelines.
If there is something which doesn't make sense, then it's their rationale:
- They already ships shared libs.
News in the bz ticket.
Btw, only binutils itself is linked shared with the two troublesome libs.
Here's the list of packages in F-12 that "BuildRequires: binutils-devel" with an unknown purpose:
$ repoquery --disablerepo='*' --enablerepo='*source*' --srpm --whatrequires binutils-devel --qf "%{name}"|sort|uniq alleyoop avarice CodeAnalyst-gui eclipse-oprofile gcl kdesdk kernel ksplice latrace libdwarf lush mutrace oprofile pfmon sblim-wbemcli stapitrace sysprof
[ http://mschwendt.fedorapeople.org/staticbugstat.html ]
On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 17:11:11 +0100, Milos wrote:
On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 15:52:13 +0100, I wrote:
- Early-warning system => "binutils" was closed WONTFIX: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/556040 I may need some backup in case the reopened ticket will be ignored.
Amazing how responsive some maintainers can be if they want to close something as WONTFIX or NOTABUG together with a slap into the face.
"They don't make any sense for binutils" is all what Jakub Jelinek added about the current Fedora Packaging Guidelines.
Indeed, surprising:)
I've reopened again, let's see what explanation we will get (if any).
Milos
Does anyone else like to add something?
I've slept about this, and I'm starting to feel bad. If the autoqa guys had blogged about such a test for static lib packaging, I'm sure there would be a lobby who praises them.
This check of whether static libs are packaged correctly is automated, including the tracking and closing of bugzilla tickets. In my opinion the guidelines are clear [1], I've been responsive to answer early questions. But apparently it's too easy to slam a door and hide somewhere. "binutils" is not the only troublemaker. "e2fsprogs" has been reported two months ago without a response.
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 01:01:15PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
Does anyone else like to add something?
I've slept about this, and I'm starting to feel bad. If the autoqa guys had blogged about such a test for static lib packaging, I'm sure there would be a lobby who praises them.
I think the your work is good and helpful.
This check of whether static libs are packaged correctly is automated, including the tracking and closing of bugzilla tickets. In my opinion the guidelines are clear [1], I've been responsive to answer early questions. But apparently it's too easy to slam a door and hide somewhere. "binutils" is not the only troublemaker. "e2fsprogs" has been reported two months ago without a response.
I understand the frustration this ignorance causes, but I guess this behaviour is a generic human problem, that probably every community of a certain size have to live with eventually.
Regards Till
On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 13:01 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
[ http://mschwendt.fedorapeople.org/staticbugstat.html ]
On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 17:11:11 +0100, Milos wrote:
On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 15:52:13 +0100, I wrote:
- Early-warning system => "binutils" was closed WONTFIX: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/556040 I may need some backup in case the reopened ticket will be ignored.
Amazing how responsive some maintainers can be if they want to close something as WONTFIX or NOTABUG together with a slap into the face.
"They don't make any sense for binutils" is all what Jakub Jelinek added about the current Fedora Packaging Guidelines.
Indeed, surprising:)
I've reopened again, let's see what explanation we will get (if any).
Milos
Does anyone else like to add something?
I've slept about this, and I'm starting to feel bad. If the autoqa guys had blogged about such a test for static lib packaging, I'm sure there would be a lobby who praises them.
This check of whether static libs are packaged correctly is automated, including the tracking and closing of bugzilla tickets. In my opinion the guidelines are clear [1], I've been responsive to answer early questions. But apparently it's too easy to slam a door and hide somewhere. "binutils" is not the only troublemaker. "e2fsprogs" has been reported two months ago without a response.
I appreciate the work you're doing here, and I think if you're not getting traction you should bring it to FESCos attention.
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 13:01 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
[ http://mschwendt.fedorapeople.org/staticbugstat.html ]
On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 17:11:11 +0100, Milos wrote:
On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 15:52:13 +0100, I wrote:
- Early-warning system => "binutils" was closed WONTFIX: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/556040 I may need some backup in case the reopened ticket will be ignored.
Amazing how responsive some maintainers can be if they want to close something as WONTFIX or NOTABUG together with a slap into the face.
"They don't make any sense for binutils" is all what Jakub Jelinek added about the current Fedora Packaging Guidelines.
Indeed, surprising:)
I've reopened again, let's see what explanation we will get (if any).
Milos
Does anyone else like to add something?
I've slept about this, and I'm starting to feel bad. If the autoqa guys had blogged about such a test for static lib packaging, I'm sure there would be a lobby who praises them.
This check of whether static libs are packaged correctly is automated, including the tracking and closing of bugzilla tickets. In my opinion the guidelines are clear [1], I've been responsive to answer early questions. But apparently it's too easy to slam a door and hide somewhere. "binutils" is not the only troublemaker. "e2fsprogs" has been reported two months ago without a response.
I appreciate the work you're doing here, and I think if you're not getting traction you should bring it to FESCos attention.
I second that. This may annoy the crap out of people, but it needs fixing, and it's FESCo's role to enforce FPC issues. Thank you for doing the legwork and, sadly, taking the heat.
-- packaging mailing list packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org