Bug 233426 - Review Request: ruby-mecab - Ruby binding for MeCab
Review Request: ruby-mecab - Ruby binding for MeCab
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
rawhide
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Hans de Goede
Fedora Package Reviews List
:
Depends On:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2007-03-22 09:04 EDT by Mamoru TASAKA
Modified: 2007-11-30 17:11 EST (History)
0 users

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2007-05-04 07:31:07 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
hdegoede: fedora‑review+
jwboyer: fedora‑cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Comment 1 Hans de Goede 2007-03-30 15:09:16 EDT
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.
Comment 2 Mamoru TASAKA 2007-03-31 09:03:38 EDT
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@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> - 0.95-2
- Build with -fPIC for shared library (#233426)
- Rename to mecab-ruby, drop providing
------------------------------------------------
Comment 4 Hans de Goede 2007-04-01 03:58:22 EDT
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
Comment 5 Mamoru TASAKA 2007-04-01 04:03:37 EDT
Thank you for reply.

In reply to comment #4)
> Should Fix
> ==========
> * Remove the unused rubyver %define
This is used in
----------------------------------------
Requires:	ruby(abi) = %{rubyver}
----------------------------------------
Comment 6 Hans de Goede 2007-04-01 04:05:46 EDT
(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.
Comment 7 Mamoru TASAKA 2007-05-04 04:09:05 EDT
Would you restart to review this package?
Comment 8 Hans de Goede 2007-05-04 04:38:28 EDT
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!
Comment 9 Mamoru TASAKA 2007-05-04 05:08:47 EDT
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@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp
Branches:               devel FC-6 FC-5
InitialCC:              (nobody)
Comment 10 Mamoru TASAKA 2007-05-04 07:31:07 EDT
Rebuilt on all branches, closing.
Thank you for the review!!

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.