|
From: <ga...@sp...> - 2003-11-24 13:57:32
|
Hi,
I just tried building a valgrind rpm of valgrind 2.0.0 on Red Hat 9
The following are the errors at the end of the build procedure:
Checking for unpackaged file(s): /usr/lib/rpm/check-files
/home/hosler/WIP/rpmbuild/tmp/valgrind
error: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:
/usr/include/valgrind/vg_constants_skin.h
/usr/include/valgrind/vg_kerneliface.h
/usr/include/valgrind/vg_skin.h
RPM build errors:
Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:
/usr/include/valgrind/vg_constants_skin.h
/usr/include/valgrind/vg_kerneliface.h
/usr/include/valgrind/vg_skin.h
Basically what this is saying is that there are 3 files:
/usr/include/valgrind/vg_constants_skin.h
/usr/include/valgrind/vg_kerneliface.h
/usr/include/valgrind/vg_skin.h
that are "make install"'ed but these 3 files do not show up in any file list.
One possible solution is to rm these files in the install section after they
are installed.
This appears to still be broken in CVS. Has anyone built a valgrind RPM on Red
Hat 9 recently ?
I can supply a fix for valgrind.spec.in if no one else has one.
best rgds,
-Greg
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
You can release software that's good, software that's inexpensive, or
software that's available on time. You can usually release software
that has 2 of these 3 attributes -- but not all 3.
| Greg Hosler gr...@ho... |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
|
|
From: Nicholas N. <nj...@ca...> - 2003-11-24 14:20:36
|
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 ga...@sp... wrote: > Basically what this is saying is that there are 3 files: > > /usr/include/valgrind/vg_constants_skin.h > /usr/include/valgrind/vg_kerneliface.h > /usr/include/valgrind/vg_skin.h > > that are "make install"'ed but these 3 files do not show up in any file list. > One possible solution is to rm these files in the install section after they > are installed. That's not acceptabel; they are needed by some tools (eg. KCachegrind). Can't they simply be added to valgrind.spec.in? N |
|
From: <ga...@sp...> - 2003-11-24 14:40:39
|
On 24-Nov-2003 Nicholas Nethercote wrote: > On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 ga...@sp... wrote: > >> Basically what this is saying is that there are 3 files: >> >> /usr/include/valgrind/vg_constants_skin.h >> /usr/include/valgrind/vg_kerneliface.h >> /usr/include/valgrind/vg_skin.h >> >> that are "make install"'ed but these 3 files do not show up in any file >> list. >> One possible solution is to rm these files in the install section after they >> are installed. > > That's not acceptabel; they are needed by some tools (eg. KCachegrind). > Can't they simply be added to valgrind.spec.in? yes. of course that is the other alternative. Normally header files would have gone in a "devel" rpm, but since there wasn't one, I was unaware of the need for these by some other tools. The proper solution would be to have a "devel" rpm and put these in that rpm. Or do these *really* belong in the valgrind rpm ? best rgds, -Greg > N > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program. > Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive? Does it > help you create better code? SHARE THE LOVE, and help us help > YOU! Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/ > _______________________________________________ > Valgrind-users mailing list > Val...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/valgrind-users +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ You can release software that's good, software that's inexpensive, or software that's available on time. You can usually release software that has 2 of these 3 attributes -- but not all 3. | Greg Hosler gr...@ho... | +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ |
|
From: Josef W. <Jos...@in...> - 2003-11-24 17:26:09
|
On Monday 24 November 2003 15:42, ga...@sp... wrote: > On 24-Nov-2003 Nicholas Nethercote wrote: > > That's not acceptabel; they are needed by some tools (eg. KCachegrind). > > Can't they simply be added to valgrind.spec.in? > > yes. of course that is the other alternative. > > Normally header files would have gone in a "devel" rpm, but since there > wasn't one, I was unaware of the need for these by some other tools. > > The proper solution would be to have a "devel" rpm and put these in that > rpm. Isn't it the job of the distributor/packager to correctly split up a source package into one with the binary and a -devel one? I thought that the *.spec file in source tar.gz is only a hint and *can* be used by a packager. The given include files are needed to compile external skins/tools. So yes, they would be a candidate for a -devel package. But that's up to you. Cheers, Josef |
|
From: Robert W. <rj...@du...> - 2003-11-24 17:34:13
|
> Isn't it the job of the distributor/packager to correctly split up a > source package into one with the binary and a -devel one? It occurs to me that Valgrind is already a developer tool, and doesn't really need to be divided into two RPMs. Regards, Robert. --=20 Robert Walsh Amalgamated Durables, Inc. - "We don't make the things you buy." Email: rj...@du... |
|
From: <ar...@de...> - 2003-11-24 18:46:42
|
Robert Walsh <rj...@du...> writes: >> Isn't it the job of the distributor/packager to correctly split up a >> source package into one with the binary and a -devel one? > > It occurs to me that Valgrind is already a developer tool, and doesn't > really need to be divided into two RPMs. I tried to put two valgrind packages for Debian (valgrind and valgrind-dev) but it seems to be useless for the users so I put valgrind together again. > > Regards, > Robert. > > -- > Robert Walsh > Amalgamated Durables, Inc. - "We don't make the things you buy." > Email: rj...@du... -- Andres Roldan Fluidsignal Group <ar...@fl...> The Debian Project <ar...@de...> GIGAX <ar...@gi...> GPG Key-ID 0xB29396EB Home Page http://people.fluidsignal.com/~aroldan |
|
From: <ga...@sp...> - 2003-11-25 01:31:18
Attachments:
valgrind-2.0.0.diff
|
Hi all, attached is a patch file against valgrind 2.0.0, which corrects "valgrind.spec.in" so that the installed header files (which are necessary for other valgrind components) are properly installed. might someone apply this to CVS ? best rgds, -Greg On 24-Nov-2003 Robert Walsh wrote: >> Isn't it the job of the distributor/packager to correctly split up a >> source package into one with the binary and a -devel one? > > It occurs to me that Valgrind is already a developer tool, and doesn't > really need to be divided into two RPMs. > > Regards, > Robert. > > -- > Robert Walsh > Amalgamated Durables, Inc. - "We don't make the things you buy." > Email: rj...@du... +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ You can release software that's good, software that's inexpensive, or software that's available on time. You can usually release software that has 2 of these 3 attributes -- but not all 3. | Greg Hosler gr...@ho... | +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ |
|
From: Nicholas N. <nj...@ca...> - 2003-11-25 11:15:16
|
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 ga...@sp... wrote: > attached is a patch file against valgrind 2.0.0, which corrects > "valgrind.spec.in" so that the installed header files (which are necessary for > other valgrind components) are properly installed. > > might someone apply this to CVS ? Done N |