On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 2:14 PM, David Howells <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I've produced a pair of specfiles that I'm aiming to get into Fedora that take
> the standard Fedora binutils and gcc SRPM sources and patches and produce a
> series of cross-compilation binutils and gcc RPMs for all the Linux kernel
> arches that I can manage to get working.
>
> The inclusion request BZs can be found here:
>
> cross-binutils: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=761619
> cross-gcc: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=766166
>
> However, there are a number of warnings that rpmlint produces that I'd like
> some advice on. For cross-binutils:
>
> (1) As each set of cross-binutils manual pages is the same as every other set
> (and the core set come to that), I've stuffed the base manual pages in
> their own RPM and put symlinks to them from the individual arch RPMs.
>
> However, this results in lots of "dangling-relative-symlink" warnings,
> even though the targets are in another RPM passed to rpmlint.
>
> Can I make rpmlint ignore these?
Probably not, but zero rpmlint output isn't required, although one
should do as much as possible to fix the problems.
> (2) The manual pages and translation files RPM gets the warning "no-binary" -
> which is true.
>
> Is there any way to make the spec file produce a noarch RPM at the same
> time as a bunch of binary RPMs?
Within any sub-package you can specify "BuildArch: noarch" since the
same package can be installed regardless of arch.
%package doc
Summary: Documentation and man pages for %{name}
BuildArch: noarch
Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
%description
...
or something like that.
> (4) The binutils installer would like to create /usr/<target>/. I'm creating
> /usr/cross/<target>/ to group all the stuff together into one dir under
> /usr. However, rpmlint likes neither of these and gives a
> "non-standard-dir-in-usr" warning.
>
> Should I put the stuff somewhere else? /usr/lib/ or /usr/libexec/
> perhaps? I've tried to persuade the cross-gcc to use the things in
> /usr/bin/, but it really doesn't want to do that.
Not sure here. Maybe they should be /usr/lib/<target>. I as /usr/lib
and not /usr/lib{,64} because lib64 I would think should be only for
x86_64 libraries.
> (5) The binutils installer creates a supplementary "<target>-ld.bfd" that's a
> hardlink to "<target>-ld". It doesn't, however, supply a manual page for
> this.
>
> Is there a way to tell rpmlint that this is correct? Or should I just
> discard the ld.bfd entirely? What is it for, anyway? I could even link
> the manual page, I suppose.
If you want to keep them then symlinking the man pages would work.
> And for cross-gcc:
> (7) The common manpage and translation RPM triggers a "no-binary" warning as
> for cross-binutils.
Same as #2 above.
> (8) The package installs gpl.7.gz and similar common-looking manpages in
> man7.
> Is this a bad idea, just in case there's a conflict with another package
> wanting to do the same?
>
> Is there/ should there be a common GPL licence text RPM with these files
> in it that RPMs can be made dependent on?
You'll have to take a look and see what's in them. You can run man and
add the path to the file (it doesn't have to be installed) to see what
they contain.
man /path/to/gpl.7.gz
I quick check didn't find any other packages providing gpl.7
# repoquery --whatprovides /usr/share/man/man7/gpl.7*
<no output>
Richard
--
devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
