On Sun, 2014-09-14 at 11:42 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote: > Thanks. That is a much bigger list than the packages I already filed > bugs for based on the reproquery against the debuginfo packages. > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141461 > Specifically missing are: cockpit, exim, gearmand, ghostscript, ipxe, > libmemcached, mingw-glib2, mingw-qt5-qtjsbackend, mongodb, openvswitch, > qemu, R, realmd, rubygem-passenger, squid, wine-mono. > > I think that means they either don't enable valgrind support in the > binary package or they don't generate proper debuginfo. I assume it > still makes sense to file a bug report against these packages so the > maintainer can investigate. If it turns out the package source does > include a private copy of valgrind.h, but they don't actually > use/activate support for it in the binary package, how should the > package be marked? I checked out and prepped all the above packages. Some of the above were false positives. They contained a valgrind.h which wasn't actually a copy of the upstream valgrind version of that file (but often a wrapper to use in case the system valgrind.h was missing). But most of them did indeed include a private copy of valgrind.h. I filed bugs for those that did and added them to the tracking bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141461 Thanks, Mark -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
