Bug 461434
| Summary: | Request for rpmlint to warn about OCaml custom executables | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Richard W.M. Jones <rjones> | ||||
| Component: | rpmlint | Assignee: | Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta> | ||||
| Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> | ||||
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |||||
| Priority: | medium | ||||||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | manuel.wolfshant, tmz | ||||
| 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: | 2008-10-31 10:25:32 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: | |||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||
|
Description
Richard W.M. Jones
2008-09-07 23:03:34 UTC
If you want me to generate an actual patch for rpmlint, let me know. I just thought it'd be easier for someone familiar with the code to just add this simple change. Created attachment 316032 [details] First try Attached is a first try implementation; install it as /usr/share/rpmlint/BinariesCheck.py and let me know how it looks. Example output: coq.x86_64: W: ocaml-mixed-executable /usr/bin/coqdoc Executables built with ocamlc -custom are deprecated. Packagers should ask upstream maintainers to build these executables without the -custom option. If this cannot be changed and the executable needs to be packaged in its current form, make sure that rpmbuild does not strip it during the build, and on setups that use prelink, make sure that prelink does not strip it either, usually by placing a blacklist file in /etc/prelink.conf.d. For more information, see http://bugs.debian.org/256900#49 Note that the unstripped-binary-or-object warning is also printed for these executables. That's probably not a good thing...? Yes, I've checked that updated file on various ocaml RPMs with and
without the mixed executables and it seems to work fine. Two points
I would make:
(1) The regexp:
ocaml_mixed_regex = re.compile('^Caml1999X008$')
is probably better as:
ocaml_mixed_regex = re.compile('^Caml1999X0\d\d$')
since in theory the number at the end might not always be 08.
(2) In the link http://bugs.debian.org/256900#49 the '#49' gets
stripped off during the redirect by some browsers (eg: Firefox - OK,
Safari - strips it, w3m - strips it). So it might be better to link
to the complete URL (http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=256900#49)
> Note that the unstripped-binary-or-object warning is also printed for these
> executables. That's probably not a good thing...?
I think that's fine. All OCaml binaries should be stripped except
for the few remaining mixed executables.
Ok, checked in upstream with (1) and (2) changed, thanks for the feedback. ((2) really needs some browser bug reports, elinks is affected too, will look into reporting that and w3m.)
> > Note that the unstripped-binary-or-object warning is also printed for these
> > executables. That's probably not a good thing...?
>
> I think that's fine. All OCaml binaries should be stripped except
> for the few remaining mixed executables.
I understand, but I think it'll confuse some people to first get a unstripped-binary-or-object warning strongly suggesting to strip an executable, then in the next warning for the same executable, a strong suggestion to NOT strip it (if it can't be built without ocaml -custom). I'm afraid we'd see some rpmlint bug reports about that :P
(In reply to comment #4) > > > Note that the unstripped-binary-or-object warning is also printed for these > > > executables. That's probably not a good thing...? > > > > I think that's fine. All OCaml binaries should be stripped except > > for the few remaining mixed executables. > > I understand, but I think it'll confuse some people to first get a > unstripped-binary-or-object warning strongly suggesting to strip an executable, > then in the next warning for the same executable, a strong suggestion to NOT > strip it (if it can't be built without ocaml -custom). I'm afraid we'd see > some rpmlint bug reports about that :P OK - I'll leave it up to you. rpmlint-0.85-1.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rpmlint-0.85-1.fc9 rpmlint-0.85-1.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update rpmlint'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2008-9125 rpmlint-0.85-2.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. rpmlint-0.85-2.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rpmlint-0.85-2.fc10 rpmlint-0.85-2.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. |