Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: libdwarf - library for producing and consuming DWARF debugging information
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461757
Summary: Review Request: libdwarf - library for producing and consuming DWARF debugging information Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: cagney@redhat.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/cagney/libdwarf/libdwarf.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/cagney/libdwarf/libdwarf-20080818-1.fc9.src.rpm Description:
libdwarf is a library for consuming and producing DWARF debugging information. In addition, the package (ok sub-package) includes the utility dwarfdump which is useful for examining and verifying DWARF.
Here's an initial cut. I'm sure I missed something.
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=461757
Andrew Cagney cagney@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |173278
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=461757
Parag AN(पराग) panemade@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |panemade@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) panemade@gmail.com 2008-09-10 09:25:02 EDT --- I will review this but first need to know what is difference between this libdwarf and the one I found on my F9 machine libdwarves1?
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=461757
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Cagney cagney@redhat.com 2008-09-10 10:38:10 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1)
I will review this but first need to know what is difference between this libdwarf and the one I found on my F9 machine libdwarves1?
Thanks! Good question, there are a number of DWARF utilities and libraries here. The dwarves and libdwarves1 packages, and elfutils's eu-readelf packages use elfutils's libdw as a dwarf reader. Similarly, binutils includes the readelf utility.
However, the ABI's and interfaces for each are very different. In addition, libdwarf includes a producer and DWARF verification tool (dwarfdump).
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=461757
Parag AN(पराग) panemade@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |panemade@gmail.com
--- Comment #3 from Parag AN(पराग) panemade@gmail.com 2008-09-11 03:33:56 EDT --- Suggestions:- 1) you can altenatively use version as %define upstreamid 20080818 Version: 0.%{upstreamid} This will help you in future if you switch to releases like 1.0 or 1.0.0 otherwise you need to use always date as version.
2) You should use shared libraries scriptlet as per given here https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#Shared_libraries
3) you should use "install -Dp" as per given here http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Timestamps
4) Though not mandatory but good if you use defattr as %defattr(-,root,root,-) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/CreatingPackageHowTo#.25fi...
5) Package build is failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=819456 You should use make as make %{?_smp_mflags} CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS -I."
Why you want to include -static package? See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461757
--- Comment #4 from Parag AN(पराग) panemade@gmail.com 2008-09-11 05:12:23 EDT --- I see no versioned libdwarf.so.*.*.* symlinks to libdwarf.so are created and not included in libdwarf rpm. Do you want to create them? In that case then you need to follow - MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461757
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Cagney cagney@redhat.com 2008-09-11 14:52:33 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3)
Suggestions:-
- you can altenatively use version as
%define upstreamid 20080818 Version: 0.%{upstreamid} This will help you in future if you switch to releases like 1.0 or 1.0.0 otherwise you need to use always date as version.
ah, i was wondering about that; I've changed it.
- You should use shared libraries scriptlet as per given here
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#Shared_libraries
doh, missed the %postun; added
- you should use "install -Dp" as per given here
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Timestamps
I've added the -p
- Though not mandatory but good if you use defattr as
%defattr(-,root,root,-) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/CreatingPackageHowTo#.25fi...
I've changed this.
- Package build is failed
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=819456 You should use make as make %{?_smp_mflags} CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS -I."
I've added the flags; I'm also going to check an x86-64 build (I needed to finish reviving my fedora access).
Why you want to include -static package? See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries
I've removed it.
It was in case a developer needed it (I think we should start making available profiled libraries also but that is another story :-).
(In reply to comment #4)
I see no versioned libdwarf.so.*.*.* symlinks to libdwarf.so are created and not included in libdwarf rpm. Do you want to create them? In that case then you need to follow
- MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1),
then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package.
For the moment no.
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=461757
--- Comment #6 from Parag AN(पराग) panemade@gmail.com 2008-09-12 00:06:23 EDT --- But where is updated SRPM and SPEC links? whenever SPEC file get changed in review then submitter should bump release and submit new SRPM and SPEC links in package review process.
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=461757
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Cagney cagney@redhat.com 2008-09-15 11:41:06 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6)
But where is updated SRPM and SPEC links? whenever SPEC file get changed in review then submitter should bump release and submit new SRPM and SPEC links in package review process.
I've just uploaded a further update to people.redhat.com/cagney/libdwarf/ Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/cagney/libdwarf/libdwarf.spec Srpm URL: http://people.redhat.com/cagney/libdwarf/libdwarf-0.20080818-2.fc9.src.rpm
This addresses the x86-64 build problem I mentioned (I still need to revive my koji building ability).
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=461757
--- Comment #8 from Parag AN(पराग) panemade@gmail.com 2008-09-17 04:03:00 EDT --- I see tarball SOURCE should be changed to http://reality.sgiweb.org/davea/%%7Bname%7D-%%7Bupstreamid%7D.tar.gz
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=461757
--- Comment #9 from Parag AN(पराग) panemade@gmail.com 2008-09-17 05:19:36 EDT --- other suggestion in .SPEC are as rpmlint output on rpms are as libdwarf.src:100: W: macro-in-%changelog upstreamid libdwarf.src:101: W: macro-in-%changelog defattr libdwarf.src:102: W: macro-in-%changelog postun ==> Always use %% instead single % in Changelog to avoid this rpmlint message.
libdwarf.i386: W: no-documentation ==> you must include doc files to libdwarf package as %doc COPYING LGPL.txt README ChangeLog
libdwarf.i386: W: no-soname /usr/lib/libdwarf.so ==> I think this mean no versioned symlinks. I still dunno how to handle this.
libdwarf.i386: W: one-line-command-in-%post /sbin/ldconfig libdwarf.i386: W: one-line-command-in-%postun /sbin/ldconfig ==> you can use ldconfig as per given here https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#Shared_libraries %post -p /sbin/ldconfig %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig
libdwarf-devel.i386: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/include/libdwarf.h ==> chmod to 644 in install command as install -m 0644 -Dp libdwarf.h $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_includedir}/libdwarf.h
libdwarf-devel.i386: W: summary-ended-with-dot Headers for libdwarf. ==> Remove dot at end of line and use summary as Summary: Development files for %{name}
libdwarf-dwarfdump.i386: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/dwarfdump.1.gz ==> chmod to 644 in install command as install -m 0644 -Dp dwarfdump.1 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_mandir}/man1/dwarfdump.1
libdwarf-dwarfdump.i386: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib libdwarf-dwarfdump.i386: E: script-without-shebang /usr/lib/dwarfdump.conf ==> Configuration files should be installed in %{_sysconfdir}/
libdwarf-dwarfdump.i386: W: summary-ended-with-dot DWARF dumping utility. ==> Remove dot at end of line.
* You should add following to -devel Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} ==> MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
* You should add following to -devel %description devel The %{name}-devel package contains header files for developing applications that use %{name}.
* package dwarfdump should require main package as Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
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=461757
--- Comment #10 from Parag AN(पराग) panemade@gmail.com 2008-09-18 00:23:09 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=317030) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=317030) modified SPEC file to solve rpmlint messages
Here is modified SPEC file for you to simplify your work. But still rpmlint gives message with this new release as libdwarf.i386: W: no-soname /usr/lib/libdwarf.so
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=461757
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Cagney cagney@redhat.com 2008-09-22 12:27:17 EDT --- Thanks for the updated file!
(In reply to comment #10)
Created an attachment (id=317030)
--> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=317030) [details]
modified SPEC file to solve rpmlint messages
Here is modified SPEC file for you to simplify your work. But still rpmlint gives message with this new release as libdwarf.i386: W: no-soname /usr/lib/libdwarf.so
Looking around I found a rule from another code base that uses:
.a.so: soname=`basename $@` ; \ $(CC) -shared -o $@.tmp \ -Wl,--whole-archive,$<,--no-whole-archive \ -Wl,--soname,$$soname,-z,-defs if readelf -d $@.tmp | fgrep -q TEXTREL; then exit 1; fi mv $@.tmp $@
to build the .so; note the --soname option passed to LD (via gcc's -Wl). I'm guessing I need to tweak things specify that; I'll check that out.
If its needed I'll also give the shared library a version number; might as well fix that as well.
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=461757
--- Comment #12 from Parag AN(पराग) panemade@gmail.com 2008-09-22 12:58:46 EDT --- Thanks for your comment. I will be waiting for your updated SRPM package for review.
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=461757
--- Comment #13 from Andrew Cagney cagney@redhat.com 2008-09-23 12:27:03 EDT --- I think I'm getting close:
$ rpmlint libdwarf.spec libdwarf-0.20080818-4.fc9.src.rpm x86_64/libdwarf-0.20080818-4.fc9.x86_64.rpm x86_64/libdwarf-devel-0.20080818-4.fc9.x86_64.rpm x86_64/libdwarf-debuginfo-0.20080818-4.fc9.x86_64.rpm x86_64/libdwarf-dwarfdump-0.20080818-4.fc9.x86_64.rpm 5 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Per the changelog it: - creates a soname branded libdwarf.so.0 / libdwarf.so - it installs/soft-links same
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/cagney/libdwarf/libdwarf.spec Srpm URL: http://people.redhat.com/cagney/libdwarf/libdwarf-0.20080818-4.fc9.src.rpm
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=461757
Parag AN(पराग) panemade@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #14 from Parag AN(पराग) panemade@gmail.com 2008-09-24 02:15:31 EDT --- Review: + package builds in mock (rawhide i386). koji build => http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=841274 + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM. + source files match upstream url 180e1264b77070b4814882671c4e57ba libdwarf-20080818.tar.gz + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + BuildRequires are proper. + Compiler flags used correctly. + defattr usage is correct. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no static libraries. + no .pc file present. + -devel subpackage exists. + no .la files. + no translations are available. + Does owns the directories it creates. + ldconfig scriptlets present. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + Package libdwarf-0.20080818-4.fc10 => Provides: libdwarf.so.0 Requires: libc.so.6 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4) rtld(GNU_HASH) + Package libdwarf-devel-0.20080818-4.fc10 => Requires: libdwarf.so.0 + Package libdwarf-dwarfdump-0.20080818-4.fc10 => Provides: config(libdwarf-dwarfdump) = 0.20080818-4.fc10 Requires: libc.so.6 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4) libdwarf.so.0 libelf.so.1 libelf.so.1(ELFUTILS_1.0) rtld(GNU_HASH)
Suggestions:- Good to see soname patch also applied in upstream. APPROVED.
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=461757
Parag AN(पराग) panemade@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(cagney@redhat.com | |)
--- Comment #15 from Parag AN(पराग) panemade@gmail.com 2008-10-06 00:57:49 EDT --- Can you request for CVS and build this package and Close this review?
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=461757
Andrew Cagney cagney@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(cagney@redhat.com | |) |
--- Comment #16 from Andrew Cagney cagney@redhat.com 2008-10-09 08:49:02 EDT --- (In reply to comment #15)
Can you request for CVS and build this package and Close this review?
Ok (I've now got my CVS working).
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=461757
--- Comment #17 from Parag AN(पराग) panemade@gmail.com 2008-10-29 03:08:40 EDT --- Can you request for CVS and build this package and Close this review?
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=461757
Parag AN(पराग) panemade@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(cagney@redhat.com | |)
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=461757
Parag AN(पराग) panemade@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Depends on| |201449 Resolution| |NOTABUG Flag|needinfo?(cagney@redhat.com | |) |
--- Comment #19 from Parag AN(पराग) panemade@gmail.com 2008-12-31 08:41:46 EDT --- Closing this now as submitter is not responding.
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=461757
--- Comment #20 from cagney@fedoraproject.org 2009-03-16 15:21:04 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=335402) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=335402) generate a valid soname
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=461757
--- Comment #21 from Parag AN(पराग) panemade@gmail.com 2009-03-16 23:31:28 EDT --- Cagney, any plans to reopen this review and maintain this package in fedora?
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=461757
Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |201449(FE-DEADREVIEW) Depends on|201449(FE-DEADREVIEW) |
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org