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 06-02-2010, 05:41 PM
Till Maas
 
Default Package maintainers -- want test results by mail?

On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 01:25:01PM -0400, Matt McCutchen wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 14:48 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:

> > yum.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/bash_completion.d/yum.bash
> > yum.noarch: E: non-executable-script
> > /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/yum/repos.py 0644L /usr/bin/python

> Which of those messages do you consider noise and why? Most of them
> look valid to me, though they are indeed nits.

Bash completion files are imho either always or never config files. So
it is either an error that needs to be fixed or not worth a warning.

And I doubt that python scripts in below
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages usually need to be executable. Since
yum works without any problems, these tons of errors are useless, too.
And they make it only harder to find real errors. I did not think more
about the other quoted rpmlint messages.

Regards
Till
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 06-02-2010, 05:46 PM
Jesse Keating
 
Default Package maintainers -- want test results by mail?

On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 19:41 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
> And I doubt that python scripts in below
> /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages usually need to be executable. Since
> yum works without any problems, these tons of errors are useless, too.
> And they make it only harder to find real errors. I did not think more
> about the other quoted rpmlint messages.
>
>

It's complaining because the files have #! in them, likely to assist in
self tests, but the files aren't marked as executable. That could
actually be fixed upstream, either mark them as executable or remove the
#!s.

--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 06-02-2010, 05:59 PM
Till Maas
 
Default Package maintainers -- want test results by mail?

On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 10:46:51AM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 19:41 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
> > And I doubt that python scripts in below
> > /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages usually need to be executable. Since
> > yum works without any problems, these tons of errors are useless, too.
> > And they make it only harder to find real errors. I did not think more
> > about the other quoted rpmlint messages.
> >
> >
>
> It's complaining because the files have #! in them, likely to assist in
> self tests, but the files aren't marked as executable. That could
> actually be fixed upstream, either mark them as executable or remove the
> #!s.

I understand the rpmlint test, but I do not understand why this needs to
be handled upstream or why this is any problem at all. Are there
packages with executable files in the python-sitelib that need to be
executable or are used by users of the installed package as executables?

Regards
Till
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 06-02-2010, 06:10 PM
Matt McCutchen
 
Default Package maintainers -- want test results by mail?

On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 19:41 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 01:25:01PM -0400, Matt McCutchen wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 14:48 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
> > > yum.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/bash_completion.d/yum.bash
> > > yum.noarch: E: non-executable-script
> > > /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/yum/repos.py 0644L /usr/bin/python
>
> > Which of those messages do you consider noise and why? Most of them
> > look valid to me, though they are indeed nits.
>
> Bash completion files are imho either always or never config files. So
> it is either an error that needs to be fixed or not worth a warning.

The right thing to do is to file a bug against bash-completion to get
that decision made and then implement it, either by marking the file as
config or moving /etc/bash_completion.d to /usr/share. The warning is
not wrong.

--
Matt

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 06-02-2010, 06:23 PM
seth vidal
 
Default Package maintainers -- want test results by mail?

On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 10:46 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 19:41 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
> > And I doubt that python scripts in below
> > /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages usually need to be executable. Since
> > yum works without any problems, these tons of errors are useless, too.
> > And they make it only harder to find real errors. I did not think more
> > about the other quoted rpmlint messages.
> >
> >
>
> It's complaining because the files have #! in them, likely to assist in
> self tests, but the files aren't marked as executable. That could
> actually be fixed upstream, either mark them as executable or remove the
> #!s.
>

I've considered removing them in upstream just to shut rpmlint up.

As irritating as that is.

-sv


--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 06-02-2010, 06:24 PM
James Antill
 
Default Package maintainers -- want test results by mail?

On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 13:25 -0400, Matt McCutchen wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 14:48 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > Well, then lets begin:
> >
> > # rpmlint yum
> > yum.noarch: W: self-obsoletion yum-allow-downgrade < 1.1.20-0 obsoletes
> > yum-allow-downgrade
[...]
> Which of those messages do you consider noise and why? Most of them
> look valid to me, though they are indeed nits.

The self obsolete ones are wrong, being able to do:

Name: foo
Provide: bar = 2
Obsolete: bar <= 2

...is completely legal and needed for rename/merging which is why yum
has them.

--
James Antill - james@fedoraproject.org
http://yum.baseurl.org/wiki/releases
http://yum.baseurl.org/wiki/whatsnew/3.2.28
http://yum.baseurl.org/wiki/YumMultipleMachineCaching
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 06-02-2010, 06:31 PM
Jesse Keating
 
Default Package maintainers -- want test results by mail?

On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 19:59 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 10:46:51AM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 19:41 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
> > > And I doubt that python scripts in below
> > > /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages usually need to be executable. Since
> > > yum works without any problems, these tons of errors are useless, too.
> > > And they make it only harder to find real errors. I did not think more
> > > about the other quoted rpmlint messages.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > It's complaining because the files have #! in them, likely to assist in
> > self tests, but the files aren't marked as executable. That could
> > actually be fixed upstream, either mark them as executable or remove the
> > #!s.
>
> I understand the rpmlint test, but I do not understand why this needs to
> be handled upstream or why this is any problem at all. Are there
> packages with executable files in the python-sitelib that need to be
> executable or are used by users of the installed package as executables?
>

*shrug* I suppose it's worth checking with upstream over it. And
discussing whether that rpmlint rule should be removed in our build.

--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 06-02-2010, 06:46 PM
Toshio Kuratomi
 
Default Package maintainers -- want test results by mail?

On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 07:59:22PM +0200, Till Maas wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 10:46:51AM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 19:41 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
> > > And I doubt that python scripts in below
> > > /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages usually need to be executable. Since
> > > yum works without any problems, these tons of errors are useless, too.
> > > And they make it only harder to find real errors. I did not think more
> > > about the other quoted rpmlint messages.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > It's complaining because the files have #! in them, likely to assist in
> > self tests, but the files aren't marked as executable. That could
> > actually be fixed upstream, either mark them as executable or remove the
> > #!s.
>
> I understand the rpmlint test, but I do not understand why this needs to
> be handled upstream or why this is any problem at all. Are there
> packages with executable files in the python-sitelib that need to be
> executable or are used by users of the installed package as executables?
>
I think that was a list of three ways to fix the issue.

As for not fixing the issue at all, that is probably a valid fourth option in
most cases where python-sitelib is involved.

What follows is just how I handle things, not how they must be handled:

I like to get rid of the #! lines where the file in question is never going
to be run as a script (It's just classes and functions, there's nothing in
it to actually run and do anything). I submit these upstream and they are
generally merged quickly.

Marking as executable can be done when the module could be run as a script
by a knowledgable user (one that knows that
/usr/ib/python2.6/site-packages/foo/profiler.py can also be invoked from the
command line) to do something they want.

When the shebang is to allow running some sort of unittest I generally just
leave it alone (the end user won't want to run it and upstream does want to
run the code when they're testing).

I generally try to remove as many rpmlint warnings as I can so that I can
more plainly tell when something actually has regressed but in most cases
involving python-sitelib, you don't gain anything from dealing with this
warning.

-Toshio
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 06-02-2010, 08:15 PM
Ville Skyttä
 
Default Package maintainers -- want test results by mail?

On Wednesday 02 June 2010, James Antill wrote:

> The self obsolete ones are wrong, being able to do:
>
> Name: foo
> Provide: bar = 2
> Obsolete: bar <= 2
>
> ...is completely legal and needed for rename/merging

Yes (assuming you mean "Obsoletes: bar < 2", not "<= 2").

> which is why yum has them.

yum does not have them like that. The Provides in it are unversioned.

Obsoletes: yum-skip-broken <= 1.1.18
Obsoletes: yum-basearchonly <= 1.1.9
Obsoletes: yum-allow-downgrade < 1.1.20-0
Obsoletes: yum-plugin-allow-downgrade < 1.1.22-0
Obsoletes: yum-plugin-protect-packages < 1.1.27-0
Provides: yum-skip-broken
Provides: yum-basearchonly
Provides: yum-allow-downgrade
Provides: yum-plugin-allow-downgrade
Provides: yum-protect-packages
Provides: yum-plugin-protect-packages

Fix: sed -i -e 's/(Provides.*)/1 = %{version}-%{release}/' yum.spec

Self-obsoletion used to cause problems in various tools in the past. I don't
know if all of them contain workarounds nowadays, but on the other hand I
don't think I've ever seen an actual valid use case for self-obsoletion.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 06-02-2010, 08:18 PM
Ville Skyttä
 
Default Package maintainers -- want test results by mail?

On Wednesday 02 June 2010, Matt McCutchen wrote:

> The right thing to do is to file a bug against bash-completion to get
> that decision made and then implement it, either by marking the file as
> config or moving /etc/bash_completion.d to /usr/share. The warning is
> not wrong.

Moving to /usr/share is likely to happen in a not-too-distant-future bash-
completion upstream release. /etc/bash_completion.d will however almost
certainly be kept around for backwards compatibility for some time.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 07:11 PM.

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