[Bug 532306] Review Request: rubygem-ruby-debug - Faster implementation of the standard Debugging
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Sat Nov 7 16:49:21 UTC 2009
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=532306
--- Comment #5 from Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> 2009-11-07 11:49:20 EDT ---
Well,
- Please package linecache first.
%check fails without linecache and even without %check ruby-debug-base
actually needs linecache (see ruby-debug-base-0.10.3/lib/ruby-debug-base.rb)
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1794237
( Does your srpm actually builds for you? )
- "head" command or so is very dangerous when binary files exist.
Actually
---------------------------------------------------------------
61 # Fix anything executable that does not have a shebang
62 for file in `find %{buildroot}/%{geminstdir}
%{buildroot}/%{geminstdir2} -type f -perm /a+x`; do
63 [ -z "`head -n 1 $file | grep \"^#!/\"`" ] && chmod -v 644 $file
64 done
---------------------------------------------------------------
changes the permission of ruby_debug.so to 0644 and currently
debuginfo rpm is not correctly created.
- Executing %check under %buildroot is wrong for this package
because "rake test" again tries to create ruby_debug.so under
%buildroot%{geminstdir2}/ext/ because we move this file to
%buildroot%ruby_sitearch
---------------------------------------------------------------
853 Executing(%check): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.5gRRsq
860 + rake -f ../ruby-debug-0.10.3/Rakefile test
865 gcc -shared -o ruby_debug.so breakpoint.o ruby_debug.o -L. -L/usr/lib
-L. -rdynamic -Wl,-export-dynamic -lruby -lpthread -lrt -ldl -lcrypt -lm
-lc
---------------------------------------------------------------
%check must be done under %_builddir for this package.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
More information about the package-review
mailing list