On 09/15/2014 11:21 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
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.
Quite likely. As I said, this was a more or less brute-force, scripted
"unpackage/prep/find valgrind.h"-loop over all src.rpms.
I let it run over my local rawhide mirror, over night :-)
Ralf
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
