On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 15:58:21 -0500, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 03:58:24PM +0000, Keith G. Robertson-Turner
> wrote:
>> A total of 2 applications (out of 1603 packages) were bØrked by
>> prelink
> Can you run the apps under efence or valgrind to see if they don't have
> these kind of bugs? If they don't, then I'd be very much interested in
> reproduceable testcase
Sure. Glad to help. I'll look it over later today.
>> 3) ... Why was macros.prelink hard coded into the spec as a text block,
>> rather than as a SourceX file?
>
> macros.prelink is rpm specific. The prelink sources attempt to be
> independent from any package management system.
Sorry, I didn't make that clear. I didn't mean why isn't macros.prelink in
the tarball, I meant why isn't it provided as a separate file and listed
in the spec as - e.g. - "Source5: macros.prelink". It cleans up the spec,
and doesn't break vim's highlighting.
>> 4) ... Why isn't there a logrotate file to accompany the included log
>> file, and come to that, why *package* a log file? Or am I missing
>> something obvious?
>
> The log file is %ghost and was added only because others complained no
> package owns the file. Logrotate is not used because I don't think it
> is very much interesting to look at older logs, but you can try to
> convince me otherwise ;)
OK here goes. First I think that it's a bit OTT for people to expect every
file on the FSH to be "owned". /var/log/* is a good example. IMHO packages
should not own logs, only root should own that, since removing a package
doesn't necessarily mean that the logs are no longer needed. OTOH if the
package *is* going to own the log then I think it should ensure that it is
properly managed, which includes log rotation. The main thing (for me)
about logrotate, is not that it creates log archives, but more the fact
that it keeps the current log size manageable.
>> Weird 555 and 444 perms
> Where?
Oops, different package, sorry. I was just quoting from memory, and I
was thinking about the build logs from perl-Tk, not your package.
>> Ghost-without-post errors
> Why is that an error? The files are %config missingok.
Beats me, I'm just quoting rpmlint. The two files it complained about are
prelink.full and prelink.log. The other ghost file, prelink.force, is
mentioned in %post (touch /var/lib/misc/prelink.force), but the other two
are not. Putting them in there shuts up rpmlint.
>> Use of %{buildroot} instead of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
> This is on purpose, %{buildroot} is more readable.
Glad someone agrees with me on that.
>> why hasn't this version been officially released yet?
> By officially releasing you mean what exactly?
Maybe I missed it, but I've been waiting for a "blacklist enabled" version
to make it into stable (or is that updates-released), since that's where
my up2date/yum/apt sources point to. Did I miss it?
-
K.
