SDL2 RC tarballs packaged into rpm: core, image, ttf, smpeg, mixer, net

SDL Development
1

Meat:
URL: http://juanmabcblog.blogspot.com.es/2013/07/SDL2RCRPMS.html

Now for the fun part,

Stuff:
SDL2-2.0.0-1.i686.rpm
SDL2-debuginfo-2.0.0-1.i686.rpm
SDL2-devel-2.0.0-1.i686.rpm
SDL2_image-2.0.0-1.i686.rpm
SDL2_image-debuginfo-2.0.0-1.i686.rpm
SDL2_image-devel-2.0.0-1.i686.rpm
SDL2_mixer-2.0.0-1.i686.rpm
SDL2_mixer-debuginfo-2.0.0-1.i686.rpm
SDL2_mixer-devel-2.0.0-1.i686.rpm
SDL2_net-2.0.0-1.i686.rpm
SDL2_net-debuginfo-2.0.0-1.i686.rpm
SDL2_net-devel-2.0.0-1.i686.rpm
SDL2_ttf-2.0.12-1.i686.rpm
SDL2_ttf-debuginfo-2.0.12-1.i686.rpm
SDL2_ttf-devel-2.0.12-1.i686.rpm
smpeg2-2.0.0-1.i686.rpm
smpeg2-debuginfo-2.0.0-1.i686.rpm
smpeg2-devel-2.0.0-1.i686.rpm
SDL2-2.0.0-1.src.rpm
SDL2_image-2.0.0-1.src.rpm
SDL2_mixer-2.0.0-1.src.rpm
SDL2_net-2.0.0-1.src.rpm
SDL2_ttf-2.0.12-1.src.rpm
smpeg2-2.0.0-1.src.rpm

Complains:

  • some packages (i think all except core, have minor RPATH issues)
  • .txt is non standard compliant for README, COPYING, NEWS, … default
    packaging rules

Kudos:

  • Except from that minor issues all compiled and packaged nicely in no much
    time.

Details:

  • QA_CHECK_RPATHS=1
  • case “${QA_CHECK_RPATHS:-}” in
  • /usr/lib/rpm/check-rpaths*******************************************************************************
  • WARNING: ‘check-rpaths’ detected a broken RPATH and will cause ‘rpmbuild’
  •      to fail. To ignore these errors, you can set the '$QA_RPATHS'

  •      environment variable which is a bitmask allowing the values

  •      below. The current value of QA_RPATHS is 0x0000.
  • 0x0001 … standard RPATHs (e.g. /usr/lib); such RPATHs are a minor
  •           issue but are introducing redundant searchpaths without

  •           providing a benefit. They can also cause errors in multilib

  •           environments.
  • 0x0002 … invalid RPATHs; these are RPATHs which are neither absolute
  •           nor relative filenames and can therefore be a SECURITY risk
  • 0x0004 … insecure RPATHs; these are relative RPATHs which are a
  •           SECURITY risk
  • 0x0008 … the special ‘$ORIGIN’ RPATHs are appearing after other
  •           RPATHs; this is just a minor issue but usually unwanted
  • 0x0010 … the RPATH is empty; there is no reason for such RPATHs
  •           and they cause unneeded work while loading libraries
  • 0x0020 … an RPATH references ‘…’ of an absolute path; this will break
  •           the functionality when the path before '..' is a symlink
  • Examples:
    • to ignore standard and empty RPATHs, execute ‘rpmbuild’ like
  • $ QA_RPATHS=$[ 0x0001|0x0010 ] rpmbuild my-package.src.rpm
    • to check existing files, set $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and execute check-rpaths like
  • $ RPM_BUILD_ROOT= /usr/lib/rpm/check-rpaths

ERROR 0001: file ‘/usr/lib/libSDL2_image-2.0.so.0.0.0’ contains a standard
rpath ‘/usr/lib’ in [/usr/lib]
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.8SXp6e (%install)

RPM build errors:
Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.8SXp6e (%install)

2

smpeg, mixer, net
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=“utf-8”

Meat:
URL: http://juanmabcblog.blogspot.com.es/2013/07/SDL2RCRPMS.html

Now for the fun part,

Stuff:
SDL2-2.0.0-1.i686.rpm
SDL2-debuginfo-2.0.0-1.i686.rpm
SDL2-devel-2.0.0-1.i686.rpm
SDL2_image-2.0.0-1.i686.rpm
SDL2_image-debuginfo-2.0.0-1.i686.rpm
SDL2_image-devel-2.0.0-1.i686.rpm
SDL2_mixer-2.0.0-1.i686.rpm
SDL2_mixer-debuginfo-2.0.0-1.i686.rpm
SDL2_mixer-devel-2.0.0-1.i686.rpm
SDL2_net-2.0.0-1.i686.rpm
SDL2_net-debuginfo-2.0.0-1.i686.rpm
SDL2_net-devel-2.0.0-1.i686.rpm
SDL2_ttf-2.0.12-1.i686.rpm
SDL2_ttf-debuginfo-2.0.12-1.i686.rpm
SDL2_ttf-devel-2.0.12-1.i686.rpm
smpeg2-2.0.0-1.i686.rpm
smpeg2-debuginfo-2.0.0-1.i686.rpm
smpeg2-devel-2.0.0-1.i686.rpm
SDL2-2.0.0-1.src.rpm
SDL2_image-2.0.0-1.src.rpm
SDL2_mixer-2.0.0-1.src.rpm
SDL2_net-2.0.0-1.src.rpm
SDL2_ttf-2.0.12-1.src.rpm
smpeg2-2.0.0-1.src.rpm

Complains:

  • .txt is non standard compliant for README, COPYING, NEWS, … default
    packaging rules

Kudos:

  • Except from that minor issues all compiled and packaged nicely in no much
    time.

So, if I’m reading this right, the RedHat installer tool is
complaining because the readme and similar files have .txt endings?

NOTABUG
WILLNOTFIX

SDL (both 1 and 2) are intended to be cross-platform, and files
without post-fixes are a nuisance on Windows. For that matter, there’s
apparently some sha-bang limitation on Linux (I think inside it’s
normal dispatcher?) that either restricts or completely prevents a
sha-bang from both dispatching a file via a handler-lookup program,
and giving the actual handler arguments.

I think the only thing that could possibly get this addressed is if
RedHat won’t package it without this being dealt with. And in that
case, it’ll probably be handled via a shell script that renames the
files.> Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 02:58:27 +0200

From: “Juan Manuel B. C.”
To: sdl
Subject: [SDL] SDL2 RC tarballs packaged into rpm: core, image, ttf,

3

The problem is in house .specs have inconsistent %doc includes:
SDL2.spec (.in or not)
…
%files
%{__defattr}
%doc README-SDL.txt COPYING.txt CREDITS.txt BUGS.txt
%{_libdir}/lib*.%{__soext}.*
…
%files devel
%{__defattr}
%doc README README-SDL.txt COPYING CREDITS BUGS WhatsNew
…

Note the README-SDL.txt is the only in devel, the rest are plain no .txt,
hence an error on file not found.

This happens in the companion libraries (image, mizer, …) too.On Monday 22 July 2013 20:00:54 Jared Maddox wrote:

So, if I’m reading this right, the RedHat installer tool is
complaining because the readme and similar files have .txt endings?

NOTABUG
WILLNOTFIX

SDL (both 1 and 2) are intended to be cross-platform,…

4

This should be fixed, thanks!On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Juan Manuel B. C. <juanmabclive at hotmail.com wrote:

On Monday 22 July 2013 20:00:54 Jared Maddox wrote:

So, if I’m reading this right, the RedHat installer tool is
complaining because the readme and similar files have .txt endings?

NOTABUG
WILLNOTFIX

SDL (both 1 and 2) are intended to be cross-platform,…

The problem is in house .specs have inconsistent %doc includes:
SDL2.spec (.in or not)
…
%files
%{__defattr}
%doc README-SDL.txt COPYING.txt CREDITS.txt BUGS.txt
%{_libdir}/lib*.%{__soext}.*
…
%files devel
%{__defattr}
%doc README README-SDL.txt COPYING CREDITS BUGS WhatsNew
…

Note the README-SDL.txt is the only in devel, the rest are plain no .txt,
hence an error on file not found.

This happens in the companion libraries (image, mizer, …) too.

SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org

5

Cool, i hope we are not forgetting the rpath issue raised, which is detected by rpm
/usr/lib/rpm/check-rpaths, but i guess is not rpm exclusive:

ERROR 0001: file ‘/usr/lib/libSDL2_image-2.0.so.0.0.0’ contains a standard
rpath ‘/usr/lib’ in [/usr/lib]

ERROR 0x0001:

  •           standard RPATHs (e.g. /usr/lib); such RPATHs are a minor

  •           issue but are introducing redundant searchpaths without

  •           providing a benefit. They can also cause errors in multilib

  •           environments.

affects any SDL2_* (smpeg2 included) lib except core SDL2.

I assume they are taken care in core SDL2, obviated and delayed on others, now
release is coming for all libs, seem it’s time for the right way to propagate

6

Can you provide a tested patch for fixing this?

Thanks!On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Juan Manuel B. C. wrote:

**

Cool, i hope we are not forgetting the rpath issue raised, which is
detected by rpm /usr/lib/rpm/check-rpaths, but i guess is not rpm exclusive:

ERROR 0001: file ‘/usr/lib/libSDL2_image-2.0.so.0.0.0’ contains a standard

rpath ‘/usr/lib’ in [/usr/lib]

ERROR 0x0001:

  • standard RPATHs (e.g. /usr/lib); such RPATHs are a minor

  • issue but are introducing redundant searchpaths without

  • providing a benefit. They can also cause errors in multilib

  • environments.

affects any SDL2_* (smpeg2 included) lib except core SDL2.

I assume they are taken care in core SDL2, obviated and delayed on others,
now release is coming for all libs, seem it’s time for the right way to
propagate

SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org

7

Unfortunately, that would require a deep
view into all SDL libraries, or a motivation to
get it, that i don’t have.

You’re welcome!