https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717748
--- Comment #13 from Yannick Brosseau <yannick.brosseau(a)gmail.com> ---
(In reply to comment #12)
(In reply to comment #11)
Yannick,
After your libtoolize change I can now build the packages successfully.
I suspect you didn't see the failture from comment #9 before because you
were using rpmbuild locally and you already have a copy of the lttng-ust
libraries in /usr/lib6{,64}. (Having the libraries in the default linker
search path is equivalent to helping ld find them via -rpath-link.)
Yes, I also think that could have been the problem. I did a complete clean of
lttng-ust before redoing this package.
Comments on the .spec file follows:
1. License should be "LGPLv2 and GPLv2"
liblttng-ust-ctl/ustctl.c is GPLv2 only and is used to build
liblttng-ust-ctl.so. ust-ctl.h is also GPLv2 only and shipped in the -devel
package.
OK
Do you think it would be more appropriate to put it into a separate package?
BTW, lttng-ust being LGPLv2 only precludes using it with
the {,L}LGPLv3 libraries from Samba, which is unfortunate.
I don't think its a problem to use LTTng-Ust with LGPLV3 application or lib.
2. BuildRequires userspace-rcu-devel >= 0.6.6
-BuildRequires: pkgconfig libuuid-devel userspace-rcu-devel texinfo gcc-c++
systemtap-sdt-devel
+BuildRequires: libuuid-devel texinfo systemtap-sdt-devel
+BuildRequires: userspace-rcu-devel >= 0.6.6
Good point, forgot that one.
Remove gcc-c++ from BuildRequires per
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2.
Also remove pkgconfig from BuildRequires since it's not actually used in the
build process.
Note that installing lttng-ust.pc doesn't require pkgconfig. The pkgconfig
related depencies in -devel would still be automatically picked up by
rpmbuild.
3. Unless you're targetting EPEL5, remove the BuildRoot tag, the %clean
section and the second %defattr() in the %files -n %{name}-devel section.
OK
4. ExclusiveArch and arm
From a quick reading of configure.ac and the git logs, I believe lttng-ust
does support the ARM architecture. I recommend just removing the
ExclusiveArch line unless you have a good reason.
I'll review the list of supported arch and replace it by an explicit
ExcludeArch if necessary.
5. I recommend adding a comment in the .spec on why
"--with-java-jdk" isn't
enabled:
OK
6. Use quotes consistently for %buildroot like other RPM directory name
macros
OK
7. Upstream recently released lttng-ust-2.0.4
I looked at the git log and suspect we'd want to pick up the various
deadlock fixes.
Yes, good catch, we want those fixes.
I'll approve this review once the above points are addressed.
On a separate note, while performing this reivew I tried to run the code in
the tests/ directory (the few that were not disabled upstream) and the
example shipped as documentation. But since we don't lttng-tools and the
log viewers packaged, I was only able to verify that the sample and test
programs can be built and run but can't actually see the traces.
Do you intend to package lttng-tools nad the log viewers?
Yes, I intend to do lttng-tools right after finishing LTTng-UST.
I plan to do babeltrace soon after, when the 1.0 release is done. (Which should
be in a couple of weeks max.)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.