Bug 176579
| Summary: | Review Request: ipsvd -- Internet protocol service daemons | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Enrico Scholz <rh-bugzilla> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody> |
| Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | ||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2007-07-07 08:32:55 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 176581 | ||
|
Description
Enrico Scholz
2005-12-27 00:10:33 UTC
Good: + rpmlint of srpm fine. + Local build worked fine. + Mock build worked fine. Bad: - rpmlint of binaries rpm complaints: rpmlint ipsvd-0.11.1-0.4.i686.rpm E: ipsvd statically-linked-binary /usr/bin/ipsvd-cdb E: ipsvd statically-linked-binary /usr/bin/tcpsvd E: ipsvd statically-linked-binary /usr/bin/udpsvd question: ? I think a build without the dietlibc will be a better solution. No, this kind of packages is designed for dietlibc. Linking with glibc does not make sense there. Another question, is there any hard requirement for staticly linking? No; you have only soft benefits: static binaries are smaller, consum lesser memory and will be executed faster. Sorry, from my point of view it's make no sense to use the dietlibc and link the binaires staticly. In an embeded environemt this may be okay, but you want inclussion your package into Fedora Extras a distributation which runs on desktops or servers. dietlibc linked programs runs on desktops and servers too. It is not limited to embedded systems only. let it me say in other words: you will gain absolutely nothing when linking the programs dynamically against glibc. This will give only disadvantages. This toolset is designed for bloatless systems and it should be built correspondingly. I have make a post on fedora-extras-list to get an opion from other contribors. Hans de Goede wrote in https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-February/msg01743.html that the upstream author doesn't advice to link staticly agains the dietlibc. So I unfortunately can't approve your package until you will have changed it in according of rules 1.14 and 1.5 at https://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines Upstream author mentions 'dietlibc' explicitly several times and praises the small memory footprint. So, I think it is adviced by the upstream author. It does not violate against rule 1.14 of the packaging guidelines which are stating | Also applications linking against libraries should as far as possible link | against shared libraries not static versions. The dynamic linking support in dietlibc exists but is very experimental so I would not use. Linking against 'glibc' is not adviced by the upstream author and has only disadvantages. Therefore, I can not link against shared libraries. 'rpmlint' is a great help but is far away from being perfect and gives lot of false positives. This one, is such a false positive and can be ignored therefore. Sorry, I have look into the docs of ipsvd. the standard was to installing ipsvd is the use of the normale glibc. dietlibc is descripted as a special way to install it. So I can't approve you. you have the thwo chances: 1.) Fix it how expected. 2.) Search another review which will except you package. It is common and recommended practice that packagers choose the best way to compile their package. In most cases, this is only the application of $RPM_OPT_FLAGS (which are not set by the upstream author neither). In this case, this includes the compilation with dietlibc which: * makes tcpsvd runs >50% faster (read: when dietlibc version takes 100h, then the glibc version needs 150h) * creates >40% smaller binaries * needs only 1/10 of the memory of a glibc version Using 'dietlibc' does not violate any packaging guideline, so 'dietlibc' is the best choice for ipsvd and it's my duty as packager to use 'dietlibc'. * Mon Mar 06 2006 Enrico Scholz <enrico.scholz.de> - 0.12.1-0 - updated to 0.12.1 http://ensc.de/fedora/ipsvd.spec http://ensc.de/fedora/ipsvd-0.12.1-0.src.rpm Perhaps this should be moved back to FE-NEW and assigned to nobody? Jochen? No comments in six months; it's dfinitely time for a new reviewer. I'd agree to review that and I am agreeing with Enrico in that case. However now the guideline explicitly requires to ask FESCO to link statically, so I'll ask FESCO on behalf of Enrico. Looks like it wasn't reported here, but FESCo voted against allowing this package to link statically against dietlibc. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SteeringCommittee/Meeting-20070531 I am tired of such non-technical, political reasoned decisions. I am revoking this review request. |