8:52 a.m.
* 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
10:01 a.m.
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
10:11 a.m.
New subject: Update on packages violating the Static Library guidelines
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
11:41 a.m.
New subject: Update on packages violating the Static Library guidelines
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
11:53 a.m.
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
6:01 a.m.
[ 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.
--
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/556038#c2
6:22 a.m.
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
12:50 p.m.
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
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
1:14 p.m.
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(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
--
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love
-d. bowie
5185
days inactive
5187
days old
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
8 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
Jesse Keating -
Jon Ciesla -
Michael Schwendt -
Milos Jakubicek -
Ralf Corsepius -
Till Maas