[Bug 1703477] Review Request: recorder: A lock-free, real-time flight recorder for C or C++ programs

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1703477



--- Comment #4 from Elliott Sales de Andrade <quantum.analyst@xxxxxxxxx> ---
(In reply to Christophe de Dinechin from comment #2)
> (In reply to Elliott Sales de Andrade from comment #1)
> > - You don't need Requires:qt5-qtcharts as the executable is linked
> >   with the library and will have automatic dependency on it.
> 
> OK. Is it harmful? I see it as useful documentation. Left it for now.
>

As you can see from the Requires list, you'll have libQt5Charts.so.5()(64bit)
and libQt5Charts.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) already, which contain more information than
the package name. Also, it seems that you removed it anyway?

> > - The makefile is not verbose, so I cannot verify if the required flags are
> >   being used from the log.
> 
> Made build verbose so that you can check.
> (For information, a verbose build log is produced by the make-it-quick build
> system under .logs/make.log)
> 
> This comment caught my attention, and I made additional modifications to
> make sure
> the "hardeing" CFLAGS were correctly captured, basically adding a "fake"
> %configure step
> that is only used to capture these flags.
> 
> > [!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
> 
> Of note: I may be mistaken, but my experiments tend to demonstrate that the
> interesting flags (hardening) are only setup if you run %configure. As
> written
> above, %configure step added with "fake" configure script for that purpose.
> Let me know if there is a better way.
> 

If make-it-quick is looking for CFLAGS, etc., then you might want to use
%set_build_flags instead of %configure. Though you should make sure that the
relevant command-line arguments that %configure passes are applied. Probably
most of them are not useful if you don't install anything to all those
directories.

> 
> > - Don't use %{__install} macros (also the cd is kind of unneeded).
> 
> Done. Would you be kind enough to share the rationale? (I'm sort of new to
> Fedora packaging)
> 

They're simply unrequired and obfuscate the spec unnecessarily.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_macros

> > - ldconfig post(un) scriptlets are no longer necessary.
> 
> Removed.
> 
> Do you think this is also true on other distros (trying to make sure my
> .spec is reasonably reusable).

I wouldn't know, sorry.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Conditions]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux