MinGW/Rpmlint

From FedoraProject

< MinGW(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(New page: = Common rpmlint warnings and errors = Some rpmlint warnings and errors are generated by MinGW packages. This page explains what they mean and whether they can be ignored. Also details of...)
 
Line 4: Line 4:
 
This page explains what they mean and whether they can be ignored.
 
This page explains what they mean and whether they can be ignored.
 
Also details of long-term plans to get them fixed.
 
Also details of long-term plans to get them fixed.
 +
 +
== devel-file-in-non-devel-package ==
 +
 +
All MinGW packages are for development only, so when we passed
 +
the guidelines we didn't opt to have a separate <code>-devel</code> subpackage,
 +
since the main package would just be empty.
 +
See [https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468987 bug 468987].
 +
 +
== script-without-shebang [some .la file] ==
 +
 +
We use <code>*.la</code> files when linking.  This is [[Packaging/MinGW#Libraries_.28DLLs.29|explicitly allowed]] in the MinGW guidelines that were passed.
 +
 +
Longer term we would like to check whether <code>*.la</code> files
 +
are genuinely necessary, and whether we can remove them.
 +
 +
== spurious-executable-perm ==
 +
 +
See [https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467397#c4 this comment] for a detailed explanation.
 +
 +
== arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object ==
 +
 +
See [https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468989 bug 468989].
 +
 +
== non-standard-dir-in-usr i686-pc-mingw32 ==
 +
 +
This breaks the FHS, but is permitted by the MinGW guidelines.
 +
These directories in <code>/usr</code> are ugly, but are commonly
 +
used by cross-compilation tools.
 +
The FHS project upstream is dead, so we can't get the directory added
 +
to the standard.  It is thought to be very complex to remove the need
 +
for this directory from gcc and binutils.

Revision as of 14:40, 21 January 2009

Contents

Common rpmlint warnings and errors

Some rpmlint warnings and errors are generated by MinGW packages. This page explains what they mean and whether they can be ignored. Also details of long-term plans to get them fixed.

devel-file-in-non-devel-package

All MinGW packages are for development only, so when we passed the guidelines we didn't opt to have a separate -devel subpackage, since the main package would just be empty. See bug 468987.

script-without-shebang [some .la file]

We use *.la files when linking. This is explicitly allowed in the MinGW guidelines that were passed.

Longer term we would like to check whether *.la files are genuinely necessary, and whether we can remove them.

spurious-executable-perm

See this comment for a detailed explanation.

arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object

See bug 468989.

non-standard-dir-in-usr i686-pc-mingw32

This breaks the FHS, but is permitted by the MinGW guidelines. These directories in /usr are ugly, but are commonly used by cross-compilation tools. The FHS project upstream is dead, so we can't get the directory added to the standard. It is thought to be very complex to remove the need for this directory from gcc and binutils.