Bug 1381507
Summary: | Review Request: darktable2 - Utility to organize and develop raw images | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora EPEL | Reporter: | Germano Massullo <germano.massullo> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Oliver Ilian <oliver> |
Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | unspecified | ||
Version: | epel7 | CC: | klember, oliver, package-review |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | germano.massullo:
fedora-review-
|
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
OS: | Unspecified | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2016-10-29 10:56:19 UTC | Type: | Bug |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Germano Massullo
2016-10-04 10:43:26 UTC
There should not be problems in the spec file since it has already been reviewed when darktable 2 landed into Fedora repositories https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1281478 Downgrading to 2.0.5 due upstream request (Nikon support broken in 2.0.6) https://fedorapeople.org/~germano/package_reviews/darktable2_epel7/darktable2.spec https://fedorapeople.org/~germano/package_reviews/darktable2_epel7/darktable2-2.0.5-1.fc24.src.rpm to get rid of the .gitignore file we just need to add the second rm: # Remove bundled lua rm -rf src/external/lua/ # Remove .gitignore file rm -f data/lua/darktable/external/pygy_require/.gitignore The other Errors are rpath errors and can be ignored for now. However for a later build we should see if we can remove the rpath link in the binaries and add a file in /etc//ld.so.conf.d/ like the one below. $ cat darktable-x86_64.conf /usr/lib64/darktable/ https://fedorapeople.org/~germano/package_reviews/darktable2_epel7/darktable2.spec https://fedorapeople.org/~germano/package_reviews/darktable2_epel7/darktable2-2.0.5-1.fc24.src.rpm (In reply to Oliver Haessler from comment #3) > However for a > later build we should see if we can remove the rpath link in the binaries > and add a file in /etc//ld.so.conf.d/ like the one below. > > $ cat darktable-x86_64.conf > /usr/lib64/darktable/ Could you explain in detail the problem? I would like to patch the Fedora's darktable too. Thank you Wouldn't it make sense to just update the existing darktable package to 2.0? I am not sure it's worth keeping around both 1.x and 2.x, it's just confusing users. (In reply to Kalev Lember from comment #5) > Wouldn't it make sense to just update the existing darktable package to 2.0? > I am not sure it's worth keeping around both 1.x and 2.x, it's just > confusing users. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#Some_examples_of_what_package_updates_that_are_fine_or_not I think this applies mostly to libraries in order to keep ABI/API stable in EPEL. I don't think the policy is meant to keep leaf desktop apps on old, unsupported versions forever. (In reply to Germano Massullo from comment #4) > https://fedorapeople.org/~germano/package_reviews/darktable2_epel7/ > darktable2.spec > https://fedorapeople.org/~germano/package_reviews/darktable2_epel7/ > darktable2-2.0.5-1.fc24.src.rpm > > (In reply to Oliver Haessler from comment #3) > > However for a > > later build we should see if we can remove the rpath link in the binaries > > and add a file in /etc//ld.so.conf.d/ like the one below. > > > > $ cat darktable-x86_64.conf > > /usr/lib64/darktable/ > > Could you explain in detail the problem? I would like to patch the Fedora's > darktable too. > Thank you The feedback was based on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Beware_of_Rpath After asking in EPEL development mailing list I decided to insert darktable 2.x into darktable EPEL7 branch[1], because: - 1.x is no longer upstream maintained; - there are no API/ABI that can be broken; - it is a desktop application. Oliver, thank you for your time. I will take care of your suggestions in main darktable tree [1]. [1]: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/darktable/ |