Comment #1 : Bug #488923 : Bugs : evas package : Ubuntu

Comment 1 for bug 488923

Revision history for this message
Loïc Minier (lool) wrote :

Issues I found while reviewing evas with evas:
* configure: WARNING: unrecognized options: --disable-maintainer-mode, --disable-silent-rules, --disable-rpath
--disable-rpath is set in debian/rules and should be dropped, you might want to send that fix to Debian; not worth diverging here though
* there are various warnings during build which would be worth forwarding upstream, samples:
evas_object_box.c:86: warning: 'opt' may be used uninitialized in this function
evas_object_text.c:1269: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 1 of 'evas_common_font_utf8_get_len' differ in signedness
evas_convert_rgb_8.c:28: warning: right shift count is negative
evas_image_load.c:106: warning: passing argument 1 of 'evas_module_foreach_image_loader' from incompatible pointer type
* this class of warnings is actually serious and should definitely be reported upstream; it's likely to cause segfaults on 64-bits architectures if this code path is under use:
evas_image_main.c:156: warning: implicit declaration of function 'evas_cserve_image_free'

I didn't review ALL warnings, since there are way too many of these: I think the source deserves some cleanup

* I'm a bit worried that fb_setvt() calls chown(vtname, getuid(), getgid()); on a /dev/tty node; I don't think that's the expected use case for Debian/Ubuntu where we usually manage device permissions via udev only
* the build should disable valgrind support explicitly as it might be picked up automatically if installed in the build env and that might end up in the evas.pc file

Overall, the only thing I'm concerned with are the serious warnings above, but these code pathes might or might not be used at runtime.

Since the package is copied verbatim from Debian and the Debian maintainer is also an Ubuntu developer subscribed to the evas bugs in Ubuntu, I'm fine with promoting evas to main. However I think the serious warnings and the chmod() question should be considered important bugs to look at quickly.

Thanks,