Gentoo Websites Logo
Go to: Gentoo Home Documentation Forums Lists Bugs Planet Store Wiki Get Gentoo!

Bug 641040

Summary: dev-python/pyzmq-16.0.2: upstream marked Gentoo QA notices as RESOLVED/WONTFIX
Product: Gentoo Linux Reporter: Garri <g.djavadyan>
Component: Current packagesAssignee: Python Gentoo Team <python>
Status: CONFIRMED ---    
Severity: normal CC: jstein, mgorny, parona
Priority: Normal    
Version: unspecified   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Package list:
Runtime testing required: ---

Description Garri 2017-12-14 19:26:09 UTC
After last Gentoo update I got following QA notices for dev-python/pyzmq-16.0.2:

QA Notice: Package triggers severe warnings which indicate that it
           may exhibit random runtime failures.
/var/tmp/portage/dev-python/pyzmq-16.0.2/temp/timer_createmSQbdX.c:2:5: warning: implicit declaration of function ‘timer_create’ [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
/var/tmp/portage/dev-python/pyzmq-16.0.2/temp/timer_create7sy0jdy2.c:2:5: warning: implicit declaration of function ‘timer_create’ [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
/var/tmp/portage/dev-python/pyzmq-16.0.2/temp/timer_createoLn3Eu.c:2:5: warning: implicit declaration of function ‘timer_create’ [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
/var/tmp/portage/dev-python/pyzmq-16.0.2/temp/timer_createkdmjr89_.c:2:5: warning: implicit declaration of function ‘timer_create’ [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]

I've submitted the report to upstream [1], and the upstream marked the report as RESOLVED/WONTFIX. So, what is the next step to suppress the QA notices in future?


Comment 1 Michał Górny archtester Gentoo Infrastructure gentoo-dev Security 2017-12-18 11:53:04 UTC
I think upstream would accept a good patch if someone provided one.
Comment 2 Garri 2017-12-18 16:15:03 UTC
Sorry for offtopic, I've got a few more WONTFIX from upstreams. Is it OK to open reports in Gentoo's Bugzilla?
Comment 3 genBTC 2023-04-06 03:03:16 UTC
fyi, this is still present in recent pyzmq-25.0.2
upstream seems to have added a disclaimer message in 2019 instead of addressing the root of it
seems non-ideal , maybe someone can convince them to take another look ?
Comment 4 Alfred Wingate 2023-08-01 11:40:18 UTC
This warning has been suppressed or fixed in 25.1.0 seemingly indirectly. 

Even so I think upstream is correct in classing the QA warning as a false positive as its from a test where they check if the function exists. The binary is not used in the end result.