[Bug 668243] Review Request: libqb - An IPC library for high performance servers.

[bugzilla at 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=668243

--- Comment #11 from Ralf Corsepius <rc040203 at freenet.de> 2011-01-20 01:37:29 EST ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> (In reply to comment #9)
> > (In reply to comment #8)
> > > (In reply to comment #7)
> > > > 2 MUSTFIXES:
> > 
> > > > * Package doesn't honor RPM_OPT_FLAGS.
> > > > 
> > > > The configure script plays nasty games with *FLAGS in a way they overwrite
> > > > Fedora's *FLAGS.
> > > > 
> > > > Excerpt from my build.log:
> > > > ... gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I../include -I../include -I../include -O2 -g -pipe
> > > > -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector
> > > > --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic -O3 -ggdb3 -Wall ....
> > > > 
> > > > Note: ... "RPM_OPT_FLAGS"... -O3 -ggdb3.
> > > > 
> > > > The later overwrite flags from RPM_OPT_FLAGS.
> > > > 
> > > > One way to fix this is to sed out the stuff which is responsible for this from
> > > > configure.ac: e.g. by adding this before autogen.sh:
> > > > 
> > > > sed -i -e 's,OPT_CFLAGS="-O3",OPT_CFLAGS=,' \
> > > >  -e 's,GDB_FLAGS="-ggdb3",GDB_FLAGS=,' configure.ac
> > > 
> > > I disagree with this approach as policy allow flags override.
> > >
> > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Compiler_flags
> > You are mis-interpreting this.
> 
> On what base sorry?

Common sense and the fact I know about the intentions behind this paragraph.

> None of the gcc security flags are overridden and so far you haven´t given any
> technical reason on why optimization flags should not.
-OX and -g rsp. -gX are GCC flags which comprise many other GCC flags
underneath.

What they exactly do changes over time and is machine/archtecture/OS dependent.

=> Consistent usage of these flags is vital to a distribution.

Openly said, I wonder why I have to explain this.


> > 
> > > > Should one of you be upstream, I'd seriously advise you to rework the
> > > > configure.ac and to start making "make dist" working to ship proerly packaged
> > > > tar-balls instead of .git snapshots.
> > > 
> > > make dist works just fine upstream, what problem are you experiencing exactly?
> > The tarball is improperly packaged - E.g. its lack all auto*generated files,
> > which forces the Fedora packager to explictly pull in the autotools.
> 
> Many upstreams do not ship autogenerated files and pull in autotools at build
> time.
Yes, There are many people who are abusing the autotools, like due to lack of
understanding.

> If this is an issue please provide a pointer to the Fedora packaging
> guideline that enforces upstream to behave as Fedora requires and/or mass-file
> bugs after policy has been made clear.
This isn't an issue to Fedora - It's an issue to such package's upstreams and
to those people who try to maintain such packages in Fedora.

Running the autotools during builds simply means exposing people to
non-determinisms. In other words, everytime somebody uses a different version
of the autotools than upstream, this person is likely to face issues from this.

Rest assured, these issues are not of a theoretical nature, they are real.

> Fedora Policy has only one draft to address that issue and it is still under
> discussion on what the correct behavior should be in those cases. As long the
> draft is not approved as official Policy, it cannot be enforced.

Not much of a problem - *I* don't have much of a problem with upstream being so
rude to expose their user base to avoidable risks nor do I have a problem with
fedora maintainers shooting themself into their own foot.

-- 
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.