FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 01-29-2010, 10:52 AM
Michael Schwendt
 
Default Update on packages violating the Static Library guidelines

Bugzilla status for packages violating the Static Library guidelines:

acl 556036 -> CLOSED
atlas 556037
attr 556038 -> CLOSED
audit 556039
binutils 556040
brltty 556041
Canna 556034 -> CLOSED
cdparanoia 547682
comedilib 556043
dnssec-tools 556044
e2fsprogs 545144
expat 556046
fftw2 556047
file 556048 -> CLOSED
gcc 556049
gdbm 556050
ghostscript 556051 -> CLOSED
gnutls 556052 -> CLOSED
gpsim 556053
gtk+extra 556054
hpic 556055 -> CLOSED
isdn4k-utils 556056
js 556057 -> CLOSED
ldns 556058 -> CLOSED
libaio 556059 -> CLOSED
libannodex 556060
libbtctl 556061
libcaca 556062
libcddb 556063 -> CLOSED
libcdio 556064
libcmml 556065
libdnet 556066
libevent 556067
libftdi 556068 -> CLOSED
libnl 556069
liboggz 556070
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
lockdev 556083 -> CLOSED
meanwhile 556084
mpich2 545149
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
syck 556095
sysfsutils 556096 -> CLOSED
texlive 556097
torque 556098
util-vserver 556099
xbsql 556100 -> CLOSED
xen 556101
xfsprogs 556102
xmlsec1 556103

--
Michael Schwendt
Fedora release 12 (Constantine) - Linux 2.6.31.12-174.2.3.fc12.i686.PAE
loadavg: 0.10 0.05 0.01
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 02-04-2010, 06:42 PM
Adam Jackson
 
Default Update on packages violating the Static Library guidelines

On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 12:52 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:

> cdparanoia 547682
> liboggz 556070

Fixed in rawhide.

- ajax
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 02-05-2010, 06:59 PM
Michael Schwendt
 
Default Update on packages violating the Static Library guidelines

On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 14:42:20 -0500, Adam wrote:

> > cdparanoia 547682
> > liboggz 556070
>
> Fixed in rawhide.

cdparanoia's ticket has been reopened automatically as the problem
is still reproducible.

Feel free to refer to

http://mschwendt.fedorapeople.org/staticbugstat.html

for the full list of what is fixed and what isn't.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 02-09-2010, 04:53 PM
Michael Schwendt
 
Default Update on packages violating the Static Library guidelines

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
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 
Old 02-11-2010, 11:01 AM
Michael Schwendt
 
Default Update on packages violating the Static Library guidelines

[ 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
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 
Old 02-11-2010, 11:22 AM
Till Maas
 
Default Update on packages violating the Static Library guidelines

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
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 
Old 02-11-2010, 05:50 PM
Jesse Keating
 
Default Update on packages violating the Static Library guidelines

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 -- Freedom˛ is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 
Old 02-11-2010, 06:14 PM
Jon Ciesla
 
Default Update on packages violating the Static Library guidelines

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


--
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love

-d. bowie

--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 
Old 02-12-2010, 01:03 PM
Oliver Falk
 
Default Update on packages violating the Static Library guidelines

On 01/29/2010 12:52 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Bugzilla status for packages violating the Static Library guidelines:
>
> libdnet 556066
> libstatgrab 556075

Done!

I'm sending a separate mail regarding syck - strange compile error :-/

-of
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 02-15-2010, 09:17 AM
Oliver Falk
 
Default Update on packages violating the Static Library guidelines

On 02/12/2010 03:03 PM, Oliver Falk wrote:
> On 01/29/2010 12:52 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> Bugzilla status for packages violating the Static Library guidelines:
>>
>> libdnet 556066
>> libstatgrab 556075
>
> Done!

>> syck 556095

> I'm sending a separate mail regarding syck - strange compile error :-/

OK. Sorted out this one myself. This bug is also closed now.

-of
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 08:17 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org