[Bug 225778] New: Merge Review: gcc

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225778

Summary: Merge Review: gcc
           Product: Fedora Extras
           Version: devel
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: Linux
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: normal
         Component: Package Review
        AssignedTo: [e-mail]
        ReportedBy: [e-mail]
         QAContact: [e-mail]
                CC: [e-mail]

Fedora Merge Review: gcc

http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/gcc/
Initial Owner: [e-mail]

[Bug 225778] Merge Review: gcc

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Merge Review: gcc

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225778

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|[e-mail]    |[e-mail]
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]
               Flag|                            |fedora-review-

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-02-03 18:36 EST -------
BLOCKER:
MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec

But it currently is gcc41.spec.

[Bug 225778] Merge Review: gcc

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Merge Review: gcc

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225778

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|[e-mail]            |[e-mail]
               Flag|fedora-review-              |fedora-review?

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-02-06 16:28 EST -------
According to Jesse Keating that's just a suggestion, not a hard requirement.
Encoding the major/minor version in the spec filename makes it easier to merge
changes side by side between different gcc spec files, and more importantly,
renaming it now would with the crappy CVS mean losing the CVS history for that
file.

[Bug 225778] Merge Review: gcc

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Merge Review: gcc

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225778

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-02-07 23:50 EST -------
It's a requirement.  See the third MUST item on:
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines

This was discussed a very long time ago, before the Packaging Committee was
formed.  Let me know if you consider this important enough that you'd like us to
bring it up for discussion at a future Packaging Meeting.

[Bug 225778] Merge Review: gcc

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Merge Review: gcc

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225778

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-02-08 02:41 EST -------
Yes, I do consider this important enough.  Also, gcc isn't the only package
that intentionally uses different spec naming, see e.g. kernel-2.6.spec.

[Bug 225778] Merge Review: gcc

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Merge Review: gcc

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225778

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OtherBugsDependingO|                            |197974
              nThis|                            |

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-02-08 11:30 EST -------
Added to the Packaging Committee schedule.  I'll update this bug with any
information I turn up from spot or the mailing list archives before then.  If
you (or DaveJ regarding the kernel) are interested in arguing the case for
%{name}-%{version}, discussion will kick off on [e-mail] and
continue on #fedora-packaging on freenode, Tuesday, February 13th, 17:00 UTC, if
we can't achieve agreement on the mailing list.

[Bug 225778] Merge Review: gcc

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Merge Review: gcc

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225778

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-02-08 13:02 EST -------
We've had some initial conversations on #fedora-packaging which is leading to
these thoughts:

1) The original reason for the guideline was to prevent foo-1.0.tar.gz => bar.spec.
2) Preserving history is a perfectly valid wish.
3) comparing two versions of the spec could be done with the SCM's diff command:
   cvs diff -u -r qa-assistant-0_4_1-4_fc5 -r HEAD qa-assistant.spec
   for instance.

So my current thought on a proposal is:
'''
The spec file should be named using the %{name}.spec scheme. This is to make it
easier for people to find the appropriate spec when they install a src.rpm.

Example:
If your package is named foo-1.0.0-1.src.rpm, then the spec file should be named
foo.spec.

There is no need to include the %{version} in the spec file name. If you are
packaging multiple versions of a package for simultaneous use, they should
already reflect the version in the %{name}.spec scheme (refer to Multiple
Packages with the same base name for details).  In normal cases adding the
version can cause the spec file's history to be lost when a package's version is
upgraded.

As a special exception, there are a few packages which are allowed to have a
version in their spec filename.  This is because they had the version in their
name when they were merged from Fedora Core's cvs and removing the version at
that time would *lose* history:
  * gcc
  * [Please ask the packaging committee to add your package if you think it
should fall under this exception as well.]

This exception will go away when any of the following criteria are met:
1) We move the packages to a revision control system which is able to preserve
history across a file rename.
2) The package spec file is going to be renamed anyway (for example, gcc41.spec
is imported into cvs.  When gcc is upgraded to gcc-4.2, the new spec will be
created as gcc.spec)
'''

This text will appear on:
  http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines
and be linked from:
  http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines

Let me know if this addresses your concerns or if you have some ideas to make it
better.  I'll post it to fedora-packaging later today if you have no objections.

[Bug 225778] Merge Review: gcc

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Merge Review: gcc

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225778

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OtherBugsDependingO|197974                      |
              nThis|                            |

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-02-13 20:55 EST -------
The proposal was accepted by the packaging committee.  Officially this has to
wait a week for people in Core nad Extras to raise potential problems and veto
the proposal.  If that doesn't occur then this guideline change will be
approved.  I think the logic is pretty sound so I'm removing the FE-GUIDELINES
blocker bug.

[Bug 225778] Merge Review: gcc

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Merge Review: gcc

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225778

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  BugsThisDependsOn|                            |225809

[Bug 225778] Merge Review: gcc

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Merge Review: gcc

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225778

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Severity|normal                      |medium
           Priority|normal                      |medium
            Product|Fedora Extras               |Fedora

Bug 225778 depends on bug 225809, which changed state.

Bug 225809 Summary: Merge Review: gmp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225809

What    |Old Value                   |New Value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |CLOSED
         Resolution|                            |NEXTRELEASE

[Bug 225778] Merge Review: gcc

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Merge Review: gcc

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225778

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Version|devel                       |rawhide

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-12-14 23:06 EST -------
> and more importantly, renaming it now would with the crappy CVS mean losing
> the CVS history for that file.

That was the excuse for gcc41.spec, but why do we have a gcc43.spec now? :-(

[Bug 225778] Merge Review: gcc

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Merge Review: gcc

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225778

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-12-15 08:10 EST -------
I think we're early enough in the process of gcc43.spec to move/rename the spec
file - there were currently only two commits/builds so nothing really gets lost.

[Bug 225778] Merge Review: gcc

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Merge Review: gcc

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225778

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OtherBugsDependingO|                            |426387
              nThis|                            |

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-12-20 13:19 EST -------
This package has been chosen as one we'd like to have reviewed before F9
release.  However, currently fedora-review is set to '?' but I don't see an
assigned reviewer.  Is anyone actually reviewing this?

[Bug 225778] Merge Review: gcc

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Merge Review: gcc

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225778

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2008-01-24 18:43 EST -------
You might be interested in these Debian bugs, some of which have patches:

http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=ftbfs-gcc-4.2;users=tbm@cyr...
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=ftbfs-gcc-4.3;users=tbm@cyr...

Debian is proposing to use GCC 4.3 with the release of lenny:

http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2007/09/msg00001.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2008/01/threads.html#00250

Personally I think this will result in either a long delay or many removed
packages, or a combination of both.

[Bug 225778] Merge Review: gcc

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Merge Review: gcc

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225778

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2008-01-30 13:15 EST -------
I'm potentially interested in doing this merge review, but as long as the spec 
file isn't named according to the guidelines, it's not even worth looking any 
further. :-(

[Bug 225778] Merge Review: gcc

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Merge Review: gcc

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225778

Bug 225778 depends on bug 225809, which changed state.

Bug 225809 Summary: Merge Review: gmp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225809

What    |Old Value                   |New Value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|CLOSED                      |ASSIGNED
         Resolution|NOTABUG                     |

[Bug 225778] Merge Review: gcc

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225778

Jens Petersen  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

--- Comment #13 from Jens Petersen   2008-09-03 19:37:08 EDT ---
Here is some rpmlint output:

gcc.src: E: no-spec-file

gcc.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.3.2/include/ammintrin.h
gcc.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.3.2/include/varargs.h
gcc.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.3.2/libgcc.a
gcc.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.3.2/include/cpuid.h
gcc.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.3.2/include/unwind.h
gcc.i386: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/gcc-4.3.2/ChangeLog-2007.bz2
gcc.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.3.2/include/float.h
gcc.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.3.2/include/tmmintrin.h
gcc.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.3.2/include/xmmintrin.h
gcc.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.3.2/include/bmmintrin.h
gcc.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.3.2/include/emmintrin.h
gcc.i386: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/gcc-4.3.2/ChangeLog-2000.bz2
gcc.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.3.2/libgcc_eh.a
gcc.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.3.2/include/mmintrin-common.h
gcc.i386: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/gcc-4.3.2/ChangeLog-2003.bz2
gcc.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.3.2/include/stdarg.h
gcc.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.3.2/libgomp.a
gcc.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.3.2/libgcc_s.so
gcc.i386: W: symlink-should-be-relative
/usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.3.2/libgcc_s.so /lib/libgcc_s.so.1
gcc.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.3.2/include/mm_malloc.h
gcc.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.3.2/include/pmmintrin.h
gcc.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.3.2/libgomp.so
gcc.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.3.2/include/omp.h
gcc.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.3.2/include/stddef.h
gcc.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.3.2/include/syslimits.h
gcc.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.3.2/include/nmmintrin.h
gcc.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.3.2/include/iso646.h
gcc.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.3.2/include/smmintrin.h
gcc.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.3.2/include/stdbool.h
gcc.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.3.2/libgcov.a
gcc.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.3.2/include/limits.h
gcc.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.3.2/include/mmintrin.h
gcc.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.3.2/include/mm3dnow.h
gcc.i386: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/gcc-4.3.2/ChangeLog-2006.bz2
gcc.i386: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/info/gccint.info.gz
gcc.i386: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/gcc-4.3.2/ChangeLog-2004.bz2
gcc.i386: E: devel-dependency glibc-devel
gcc.i386: W: obsolete-not-provided gcc3
gcc.i386: W: obsolete-not-provided egcs
gcc.i386: W: obsolete-not-provided gcc-chill
gcc.i386: W: obsolete-not-provided gcc34
gcc.i386: W: obsolete-not-provided gcc35
gcc.i386: W: obsolete-not-provided gcc4
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 42 warnings.

gcc-c++.i386: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/gcc-c++-4.3.2/ChangeLog-2006.bz2
gcc-c++.i386: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/gcc-c++-4.3.2/ChangeLog-1998.bz2
gcc-c++.i386: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/gcc-c++-4.3.2/ChangeLog-2000.bz2
gcc-c++.i386: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/gcc-c++-4.3.2/ChangeLog-1999.bz2
gcc-c++.i386: E: devel-dependency libstdc++-devel
gcc-c++.i386: W: obsolete-not-provided gcc3-c++
gcc-c++.i386: W: obsolete-not-provided gcc34-c++
gcc-c++.i386: W: obsolete-not-provided gcc35-c++
gcc-c++.i386: W: obsolete-not-provided gcc4-c++
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 8 warnings.

gcc-objc++.i386: W: no-documentation
gcc-objc.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.3.2/include/objc/objc-api.h
gcc-objc.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.3.2/include/objc/thr.h
gcc-objc.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.3.2/include/objc/encoding.h
gcc-objc.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.3.2/include/objc/typedstream.h
gcc-objc.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.3.2/include/objc/Object.h
gcc-objc.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.3.2/include/objc/NXConstStr.h
gcc-objc.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.3.2/include/objc/hash.h
gcc-objc.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.3.2/include/objc/objc-decls.h
gcc-objc.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.3.2/include/objc/sarray.h
gcc-objc.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.3.2/libobjc.so
gcc-objc.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.3.2/include/objc/objc-list.h
gcc-objc.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.3.2/include/objc/objc.h
gcc-objc.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.3.2/libobjc.a
gcc-objc.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.3.2/include/objc/Protocol.h
gcc-objc.i386: W: obsolete-not-provided gcc3-objc
gcc-java.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.3.2/libgij.so
gcc-java.i386: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/gcc-java-4.3.2/ChangeLog.bz2
gcc-java.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.3.2/libgcj-tools.so
gcc-java.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.3.2/libgcj.so
gcc-java.i386: E: devel-dependency libgcj-devel
gcc-java.i386: W: obsolete-not-provided gcc3-java
gcc-java.i386: W: obsolete-not-provided gcc34-java
gcc-java.i386: W: obsolete-not-provided gcc35-java
gcc-java.i386: W: obsolete-not-provided gcc4-java
gcc-java.i386: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/gcjh ['/usr/lib']
gcc-java.i386: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/gjavah ['/usr/lib']
gcc-java.i386: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
gcc-gfortran.i386: W: file-not-utf8
/usr/share/doc/gcc-gfortran-4.3.2/ChangeLog-2004.bz2
gcc-gfortran.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.3.2/finclude/omp_lib.h
gcc-gfortran.i386: W: file-not-utf8
/usr/share/doc/gcc-gfortran-4.3.2/ChangeLog-2007.bz2
gcc-gfortran.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.3.2/libgfortran.so
gcc-gfortran.i386: W: file-not-utf8
/usr/share/doc/gcc-gfortran-4.3.2/ChangeLog-2006.bz2
gcc-gfortran.i386: W: file-not-utf8
/usr/share/doc/gcc-gfortran-4.3.2/ChangeLog-2005.bz2
gcc-gfortran.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.3.2/libgfortranbegin.a
gcc-gfortran.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.3.2/libgfortran.a
gcc-gfortran.i386: W: obsolete-not-provided gcc3-g77
gcc-gfortran.i386: W: obsolete-not-provided gcc-g77
gcc-gfortran.i386: W: obsolete-not-provided gcc4-gfortran
gcc-gnat.i386: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/gcc-gnat-4.3.2/ChangeLog.bz2
gcc-gnat.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.3.2/adalib/libgmem.a
gcc-gnat.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.3.2/adalib/libgnarl.a
gcc-gnat.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.3.2/adalib/libgnat.a
gcc-gnat.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.3.2/adalib/libgccprefix.a
gcc-gnat.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.3.2/adalib/libgnala.a
gcc-gnat.i386: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/bin/gnatgcc gcc
gcc-gnat.i386: W: obsolete-not-provided gnat-devel
gcc-gnat.i386: W: obsolete-not-provided gcc3-gnat
gcc-gnat.i386: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/gnative2ascii
['/usr/lib']
7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 7 errors, 95 warnings.

[Bug 225778] Merge Review: gcc

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225778

--- Comment #14 from Jason Tibbitts   2008-09-03 19:52:08 EDT ---
Note that all of those devel-file-in-non-devel-package complaints are bogus;
this is a compiler, and a gcc-devel package would be entirely pointless.

Those obsolete-not-provided bits could probably use some cleaning up.  There's
not much reason to obsolete something which hasn't been in Fedora for perhaps
three releases.

The devel-file-dependency is obviously not problematic.

I'm not sure about the file-not-utf8 complaints.  Obviously it would be nice
for folks to be able to look at those changelogs and see the names of the
contributors not being mangled, but there's probably some manual conversion
effort involved and that would have to go upstream.

[Bug 225778] Merge Review: gcc

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225778

--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek   2008-09-04 02:15:22 EDT ---
Yes, the devel-file-in-non-devel-package and devel-dependency are bogus, gcc*
are devel packages, the same for dangling-relative-symlink (the target of the
symlink is provided by dependent package).  I guess I could try to iconv the
ChangeLog files and will definitely drop /usr/bin/gnative2ascii and can look at
fighting crappy libtool to get rid of the rpaths.  The obsolete-not-provided
are useful there e.g. when backporting to older releases, though guess I could
just comment them out.

[Bug 225778] Merge Review: gcc

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225778

Bug 225778 depends on bug 225809, which changed state.

Bug 225809 Summary: Merge Review: gmp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225809

What    |Old Value                   |New Value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |CLOSED
         Resolution|                            |RAWHIDE

[Bug 225778] Merge Review: gcc

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225778

Bug 225778 depends on bug 225809, which changed state.

Bug 225809 Summary: Merge Review: gmp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225809

What    |Old Value                   |New Value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|CLOSED                      |ASSIGNED
         Resolution|RAWHIDE                     |

[Bug 225778] Merge Review: gcc

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225778

Bug 225778 depends on bug 225809, which changed state.

Bug 225809 Summary: Merge Review: gmp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225809

What    |Old Value                   |New Value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |CLOSED
         Resolution|                            |RAWHIDE