I just discovered in a package I'm putting through review that the
upstream tar ball contains some pre-compiled binaries. It seems like
this would be a good check for rpmbuild to run automatically before the
%build step. Thoughts?


--
Orion Poplawski
Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222
NWRA/CoRA Division FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane orion@cora.nwra.com
Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.cora.nwra.com

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Op maandag 03-11-2008 om 13:55 uur [tijdzone -0700], schreef Orion
Poplawski:
> I just discovered in a package I'm putting through review that the
> upstream tar ball contains some pre-compiled binaries. It seems like
> this would be a good check for rpmbuild to run automatically before
> the
> %build step. Thoughts?

That would kill some packages. Like all compilers that have to bootstrap
theirselves.

Joost

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

> I just discovered in a package I'm putting through review that the upstream
> tar ball contains some pre-compiled binaries. It seems like this would be a
> good check for rpmbuild to run automatically before the %build step.
> Thoughts?

Is it not better to do it in RPMLint with appropriate exceptions?

Cheerio,
Debarshi

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

> I just discovered in a package I'm putting through review that the
> upstream tar ball contains some pre-compiled binaries. It seems like
> this would be a good check for rpmbuild to run automatically before the
> %build step. Thoughts?

Fine, as long as it doesn't prevent building rpms from precompiled
binaries. I mean, other than compilers, we really shouldn't do it in
Fedora, but taking away that functionality would prevent companies
building some rpms for internal use. I agree that rpmlint sounds like a
great place for this.

> --
> Orion Poplawski
> Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222
> NWRA/CoRA Division FAX: 303-415-9702
> 3380 Mitchell Lane orion@cora.nwra.com
> Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.cora.nwra.com
>
> --
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
>


--
novus ordo absurdum

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Jon Ciesla wrote:
>> I just discovered in a package I'm putting through review that the
>> upstream tar ball contains some pre-compiled binaries. It seems like
>> this would be a good check for rpmbuild to run automatically before the
>> %build step. Thoughts?
>
> Fine, as long as it doesn't prevent building rpms from precompiled
> binaries. I mean, other than compilers, we really shouldn't do it in
> Fedora, but taking away that functionality would prevent companies
> building some rpms for internal use. I agree that rpmlint sounds like a
> great place for this.

Hold on, how do you know that something is a "binary" ? What if, for
example, it's an image bitmap? In the general case it's not possible
to tell if something is source or binary.

Andrew.

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 10:42:32AM +0000, Andrew Haley wrote:

> Hold on, how do you know that something is a "binary" ? What if, for
> example, it's an image bitmap? In the general case it's not possible
> to tell if something is source or binary.

Well, you could run "file" on it to see if it can recognize it as an
object file. But, like some of the other commentors, I see (too?)
many caveats showing up when actually implementing this idea.

--
-- Jos Vos <jos@xos.nl>
-- X/OS Experts in Open Systems BV | Phone: +31 20 6938364
-- Amsterdam, The Netherlands | Fax: +31 20 6948204

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 10:42:32AM +0000, Andrew Haley wrote:
>
> Hold on, how do you know that something is a "binary" ? What if, for
> example, it's an image bitmap? In the general case it's not possible
> to tell if something is source or binary.

At least ELF files could be found out.

--
Pat

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

On Tuesday, 04 November 2008 at 11:51, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 10:42:32AM +0000, Andrew Haley wrote:
> >
> > Hold on, how do you know that something is a "binary" ? What if, for
> > example, it's an image bitmap? In the general case it's not possible
> > to tell if something is source or binary.
>
> At least ELF files could be found out.

So could Windows binaries (executables, DLLs, C# blobs) and Java JARs.

Regards,
R.

--
Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann
RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org | MPlayer http://mplayerhq.hu
"Faith manages."
-- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

On Tue November 4 2008, Jon Ciesla wrote:
> > I just discovered in a package I'm putting through review that the
> > upstream tar ball contains some pre-compiled binaries. It seems like
> > this would be a good check for rpmbuild to run automatically before the
> > %build step. Thoughts?
>
> Fine, as long as it doesn't prevent building rpms from precompiled
> binaries. I mean, other than compilers, we really shouldn't do it in
> Fedora, but taking away that functionality would prevent companies
> building some rpms for internal use. I agree that rpmlint sounds like a
> great place for this.

I would more prefer if this was included via an extension in rpbuild, e.g.
like there is a way to enable rpath checking. Also wrt. to rpmlint, how
should this work in rpmlint? Should it run a rpmbuild -bp and then examine
the build directory? It is afaik absolutely valid to have binaries in the
tarball that is included in the srpm and remove them in %prep.

Regards,
Till

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 11:53:46AM +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> On Tuesday, 04 November 2008 at 11:51, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 10:42:32AM +0000, Andrew Haley wrote:
> > >
> > > Hold on, how do you know that something is a "binary" ? What if, for
> > > example, it's an image bitmap? In the general case it's not possible
> > > to tell if something is source or binary.
> >
> > At least ELF files could be found out.
>
> So could Windows binaries (executables, DLLs, C# blobs) and Java JARs.

File isn't very good at detecting java code, and it only see jar as Zip
archive, and .class file as data. But using the extension + the fact
that it is a zip archive may be a safe bet.

--
Pat

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list