[Bug 201779] Review Request: xfsdump

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: xfsdump


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201779





------- Additional Comments From cattelan at redhat.com  2006-08-22 17:45 EST -------
>
> OK, I'll go ahead and review this.  The links at the top are the only ones I
> could find for the package; is that actually the current version?
>
> First off, it doesn't build due to a lack of ncurses-devel.
>   
Ok added that to the BuildRequires
> Once I add that it does build.  Here's what rpmlint says:
>
> W: xfsdump symlink-should-be-relative /usr/sbin/xfsrestore /sbin/xfsrestore
> W: xfsdump symlink-should-be-relative /usr/sbin/xfsdump /sbin/xfsdump
>   Indeed, these should be relative symlinks.
>   
Ok fixed these up in the spec file.

(new spec file uploaded)
> Plus there are tons of these in the debuginfo package:
> W: xfsdump-debuginfo dangling-relative-symlink
> /usr/src/debug/xfsdump-2.2.38/dump/inv_stobj.c ../inventory/inv_stobj.c
>
> It seems that rpmbuild doesn't include the "common" directory in the package for
> whatever reason.  I don't know how to convince it to do so.  I guess that if it
> were a big deal you could flatten the links.  Unfortunately I don't know whether
> it's a big deal or not so I'll have to ask around.
>   
I appears that  /usr/lib/rpm/find-debuginfo.sh is not picking up the files.
using vpath vs symlinks would be the right thing to do. Unfortunately
there seems to be some ugly hacks with a .c file picking up a different include file
based on which directory is being compiled. Has to do with getop.h for each command
the c file is common but it picks up different options based on which getopt.h
it finds
in the current directory.

So ya it appears the debug package is not that trivial.


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.