rpmlint - errors safely to ignore
by Achilleas Pipinellis
Hi all,
I am in the process of an informal review attempt of rugged [0] and I
bumped into some errors that rpmlint found and could be false positives.
I would like your opinion.
1) explicit-lib-dependency libgit2
You must let rpm find the library dependencies by itself. Do not put
unneeded explicit Requires: tags.
I have found only this section in the wiki[1] which is a little
relevant, but some example would be better.
2) non-standard-executable-perm
/usr/lib64/gems/ruby/rugged-0.16.0/lib/rubygem-rugged/rugged.so 0775L
The permissions of all libraries I have in /usr/lib64/gems/ruby/ are 755
so I guess it is safe to ignore.
3) arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share
/usr/share/gems/gems/rugged-0.16.0/lib/rugged/rugged.so
This package installs an ELF binary in the /usr/share hierarchy, which
is reserved for architecture-independent files.
Additionally to 3, running mock it shows that:
------
DEBUG: *** WARNING: identical binaries are copied, not linked:
DEBUG: /usr/share/gems/gems/rugged-0.16.0/lib/rugged/rugged.so
DEBUG: and /usr/lib64/gems/ruby/rugged-0.16.0/lib/rubygem-rugged/rugged.so
------
Are they both needed, is it safe to ignore?
Thank you,
Axilleas
[0] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=927374
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Explicit_Requires
--
GPG : 0xABF99BE5
Blog: http://axilleas.github.io
10 years, 9 months
Rails and Bundler
by Ken Dreyer
In looking over the release notes for Rails 4, it looks like it has a
hard requirement on Bundler. Is that the case?
I have been working on patching out Bundler's initialization from
Gitorious in preparation for packaging it, so that I could avoid the
problems associated with hard dependencies on specific minor version
numbers for each Gem. I wonder if the sisyphean boulder is just going
to roll back down the other side of the hill if Rails 4 itself will
require Bundler.
Any advice?
- Ken
10 years, 10 months
