Bug 233426
| Summary: | Review Request: ruby-mecab - Ruby binding for MeCab | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Mamoru TASAKA <mtasaka> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Hans de Goede <hdegoede> |
| Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | Flags: | hdegoede:
fedora-review+
jwboyer: fedora-cvs+ |
| 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: | 2007-05-04 11:31:07 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: | |||
|
Description
Mamoru TASAKA
2007-03-22 13:04:57 UTC
Building this fails / bombs out on x86_64: + /usr/bin/make 'CXXFLAGS=-O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic' g++ -I. -I. -I/usr/lib64/ruby/1.8/x86_64-linux -I. -DHAVE_MECAB_H -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic -c MeCab_wrap.cpp gcc -shared -rdynamic -Wl,-export-dynamic -L"/usr/lib64" -o MeCab.so MeCab_wrap.o -lruby -lstdc++ -lmecab -lpthread -ldl -lcrypt -lm -lc /usr/bin/ld: MeCab_wrap.o: relocation R_X86_64_32 against `a local symbol' can not be used when making a shared object; recompile with -fPIC MeCab_wrap.o: could not read symbols: Bad value collect2: ld returned 1 exit status make: *** [MeCab.so] Error 1 error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.14284 (%build) Let me know if you need more info / help with this. Updated. http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mtasaka/dist/extras/development/SPECS/mecab-ruby-0.95-2.fc7.spec http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mtasaka/dist/extras/development/SRPMS/mecab-ruby-0.95-2.fc7.src.rpm ------------------------------------------------ * Sat Mar 31 2007 Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka.u-tokyo.ac.jp> - 0.95-2 - Build with -fPIC for shared library (#233426) - Rename to mecab-ruby, drop providing ------------------------------------------------ Update again: http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mtasaka/dist/extras/development/SPECS/ruby-mecab.spec http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mtasaka/dist/extras/development/SRPMS/ruby-mecab-0.95-3.fc7.src.rpm * Sat Mar 31 2007 Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka.u-tokyo.ac.jp> - 0.95-3 - Again change the name to ruby-mecab MUST: ===== * rpmlint output is: <empty> * Package and spec file named appropriately * Packaged according to packaging guidelines 0 License ok, but not included! * spec file is legible and in Am. English. * Source matches upstream * Compiles and builds on devel x86_64 * BR: ok * No locales * No shared libraries * Not relocatable * Package owns / or requires all dirs * No duplicate files & Permissions * %clean & macro usage OK * Contains code only * %doc does not affect runtime, and isn't large enough to warrent a sub package * no -devel package needed * no .desktop file required Should Fix ========== * Remove the unused rubyver %define Must FIX ======== * Wait for the license issue surrounding python-mecab to be solved, and solve it the same way for ruby-mecab Thank you for reply. In reply to comment #4) > Should Fix > ========== > * Remove the unused rubyver %define This is used in ---------------------------------------- Requires: ruby(abi) = %{rubyver} ---------------------------------------- (In reply to comment #5) > Thank you for reply. > > In reply to comment #4) > > Should Fix > > ========== > > * Remove the unused rubyver %define > This is used in > ---------------------------------------- > Requires: ruby(abi) = %{rubyver} > ---------------------------------------- Oops, missed that, thats fine then. Would you restart to review this package? Sure, My old review still is (mostly) valid: MUST: ===== * rpmlint output is: <empty> * Package and spec file named appropriately * Packaged according to packaging guidelines 0 License ok, but not included! * spec file is legible and in Am. English. * Source matches upstream * Compiles and builds on devel x86_64 * BR: ok * No locales * No shared libraries * Not relocatable * Package owns / or requires all dirs * No duplicate files & Permissions * %clean & macro usage OK * Contains code only * %doc does not affect runtime, and isn't large enough to warrent a sub package * no -devel package needed * no .desktop file required Should FIX ======== * Include the (japanese I know, better then nothing) mail with from upstream stating that an proper license text will be added to the next version. No blockers -> approved! Thank you!! Now I am re-rebuilding mecab related packages to support ppc64... (In reply to comment #8) > Should FIX > ======== > * Include the (japanese I know, better then nothing) mail with from upstream > stating that an proper license text will be added to the next version. Will add on CVS. Request for CVS admin: New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: ruby-mecab Short Description: Ruby binding for MeCab Owners: mtasaka.u-tokyo.ac.jp Branches: devel FC-6 FC-5 InitialCC: (nobody) Rebuilt on all branches, closing. Thank you for the review!! |