Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=532306 --- Comment #5 from Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-11-07 11:49:20 EDT --- Well, - Please package linecache first. %check fails without linecache and even without %check ruby-debug-base actually needs linecache (see ruby-debug-base-0.10.3/lib/ruby-debug-base.rb) http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1794237 ( Does your srpm actually builds for you? ) - "head" command or so is very dangerous when binary files exist. Actually --------------------------------------------------------------- 61 # Fix anything executable that does not have a shebang 62 for file in `find %{buildroot}/%{geminstdir} %{buildroot}/%{geminstdir2} -type f -perm /a+x`; do 63 [ -z "`head -n 1 $file | grep \"^#!/\"`" ] && chmod -v 644 $file 64 done --------------------------------------------------------------- changes the permission of ruby_debug.so to 0644 and currently debuginfo rpm is not correctly created. - Executing %check under %buildroot is wrong for this package because "rake test" again tries to create ruby_debug.so under %buildroot%{geminstdir2}/ext/ because we move this file to %buildroot%ruby_sitearch --------------------------------------------------------------- 853 Executing(%check): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.5gRRsq 860 + rake -f ../ruby-debug-0.10.3/Rakefile test 865 gcc -shared -o ruby_debug.so breakpoint.o ruby_debug.o -L. -L/usr/lib -L. -rdynamic -Wl,-export-dynamic -lruby -lpthread -lrt -ldl -lcrypt -lm -lc --------------------------------------------------------------- %check must be done under %_builddir for this package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review