Bug 163840

The added package graphviz-cairo-2.4 is available from:

  http://www.graphviz.org/pub/graphviz/ARCHIVE/graphviz-cairo-2.4.tar.gz

Oliver Falk has taken over maintainership of graphviz from Dams. 

Hi Oliver.  Thanks for taking over, and thank you Dams and
Ville for bring it this far.

You might as well hold off on this 2.4 upgrade as we're about to release 
another.   Probably early next week.

I'll update this bug when its ready.

Hi John! Thanks for all the information.
I'm thinking of dropping support for FC-1, FC-2, as I have no such box running
and personally I think they are EOL.

However. Shall I upgrade FC-3/FC-4 to graphviz 2.4 and FC-5/Devel/Rawhide to
graphviz-cairo? I think that's the best plan, isn't it?

Oh, just saw, that graphviz-cairo requires graphviz. I thought it's a
standalone-package...

I just commited an updated version of graphviz. I merged the spec with the one
provided within the source tarball. Fixed stuff like BuildRoot, added php-devel
and guile-devel to BuildRequires (else you get configure warnings), updated
file-list and so on. Please Ville, John, would you be so kind and review it.
I'm not going to request build - I'll wait 'til the new version comes out.

I wasn't expecting Fedora to distribute binaries for FC1, or earlier,
but I still run regression tests nightly on FC1 and RH73 for people
obtaining binaries from us.   Removing those details from the spec
would mean that your spec would fork from mine more than I think is necessary.

Yes, FC3, FC4, FC5 should all get graphviz-2.4 (or 2.6 probably).
Only FC5 should get graphviz-cairo as it depends on cairo and recent gtk2.

graphviz-cairo is a set of plugins to the base (libgvc) from the graphviz rpm,
so it requires graphviz.  (I'm going to get all of the X11 dependencies out of
the base graphviz at some point.)

Just to be a little confusing, at least to the packager, there will be a desktop
tool called "graphviz" contained in the graphviz-cairo rpm.  This is a zoomable
graph viewer/editor.  Its available now in a not-quite complete form in our
nightly snapshots from www.graphviz.org.

Related to that.  How would I go about getting the default action for a file
extension to automatically open this /usr/bin/graphviz ?   Traditionally we
have used .dot, but thats also used by Word, so .gv would be my next choice.

I'll pick up your spec from CVS and include as much as I can in my upstream
sources before the (2.6) release.

Did you intend to drop the BuildRequires for swig ?  
(Just FYI, swig is not availble on SuSE by default, so I needed to make the
requirement explicit in my spec.)

The BuildRequires for php-devel guile-devel aren't strictly necessary.  The
configure tests will build for whatever set of languages it finds on the build
platform and the %files wildcards in teh spec will work either way.

I think you should add --disable-static back in.  The only product is
a statically linked version of dot, called dot_static, which is really
only intended for us upstream, or for (non-Fedora) platforms where shared
libraries really don't work well.   Building the static objects roughly doubles
the build time.  (My configure, perhaps unconventionally, defaults to
--enable-static)

In Bug#165666 somebody commented that "transform='s,x,x,'" wasn't needed.  I
don't actually know what it does.  I think DAG probably put it in.  Can you
explain what it might have been supposed to do?
I'll try removing it, but I'm not quite sure where to look for effects of the
removal.

Also, Bug#165666 claims that these are missing, but I don't see them in your
.spec.  Have you rejected the suggestion because they are not needed?

    Requires(post): %{_bindir}/dot
    Requires(postun): %{_bindir}/dot

My comment about --disable-static was misdirected, sorry.  You'll need it only
with the soon-to-be-released version (2.6)

A few quick comments, I'm sure Oliver will fill in some more: 
 
If you don't want static libs shipped in general, I'd suggest making them 
disabled by default in "configure".  Anyway, a recommendation about 
disabling/not shipping static libs without a good reason to do otherwise has 
been recently added to the Fedora packaging guidelines. 
 
Regarding MIME type/file extension associations, I'd recommend discussing with 
the freedesktop.org folks first instead of distro package maintainers. 
http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Standards_2fshared_2dmime_2dinfo_2dspec 
http://freedesktop.org/Software/shared-mime-info 

...or even better, IANA.  http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/ 

FYI. As I'm back from holyday now, I'll have a look at this, this week!

(In reply to comment #8)
> The BuildRequires for php-devel guile-devel aren't strictly necessary.  The
> configure tests will build for whatever set of languages it finds on the build
> platform and the %files wildcards in teh spec will work either way.

I know, it isn't strictly needed, but I make it explicit, so the buildsys will
pick it up and build for those languages as well... If someone has
guile-/php-devel installed, he will get other rpms and that's something we don't
want....
 
> I think you should add --disable-static back in.  The only product is
> a statically linked version of dot, called dot_static, which is really
> only intended for us upstream, or for (non-Fedora) platforms where shared
> libraries really don't work well.   Building the static objects roughly doubles
> the build time.  (My configure, perhaps unconventionally, defaults to
> --enable-static)

Done.

> In Bug#165666 somebody commented that "transform='s,x,x,'" wasn't needed.  I
> don't actually know what it does.  I think DAG probably put it in.  Can you
> explain what it might have been supposed to do?
> I'll try removing it, but I'm not quite sure where to look for effects of the
> removal.

I'm also not sure what will happen if we remove it.

(In reply to comment #9)
> Also, Bug#165666 claims that these are missing, but I don't see them in your
> .spec.  Have you rejected the suggestion because they are not needed?
> 
>     Requires(post): %{_bindir}/dot
>     Requires(postun): %{_bindir}/dot

rpm should pick this up correctly - I guess, but I have added it to the specfile...

graphviz-2.6 and graphviz-cairo-2.6 are now available:
    http://www.graphviz.org/pub/graphviz/ARCHIVE/graphviz-2.6.tar.gz
    http://www.graphviz.org/pub/graphviz/ARCHIVE/graphviz-cairo-2.6.tar.gz

graphviz-2.6 (suitable for all Redhat releases since RH73, and all Fedora
releases) fixes bugs: 746, 750, 752, 753, 754, 756, 761, 763, 764, 765, 768,
                771, 772, 773, 774, 775, 776, 777, 778
(For details, see: http://www.graphviz.org/bugs/buglist.html )
Also Fedora Bug#165666

graphviz-cairo-2.6 (suitable for Rawhide only) provides:
   - antialised bitmap rendering for PNG, GIF, JPG output formats
   - a new desktop application "DotEdit"
      (still buggy and not feature complete but possibly usable now as a graph
viewer.  I expect to release a more complete and useful version next month. )
   

I encountered one problem with graphviz-cairo:

 Renderer type: "gtk" not recognized. Use one of: canon cmap cmapx dia dot fig
gd gd2 gif hpgl imap ismap jpeg jpg mif mp pcl pic plain plain-ext png ps ps2
svg svgz vrml vtx wbmp xdot


Any ideas?

See commit in CVS and let me know what you think.

Please check "which dot" for:
   /usr/bin/dot
and "echo 'digraph G {a->b}' | dot -v" for the output:
   The plugin configuration file:
       /usr/lib/graphviz/config
               was successfully loaded.

You can also check that the "dot -c" that was run during graphviz-cairo %post
generates a /usr/lib/graphviz/config that contains the entry:
   libgvplugin_cairo.so.1 cairo {
       render {
               png 10
               ps -10
               pdf 0
               gtk 0
               xlib 0
       }
       textlayout {
               cairo 0
       }
   }

Haven't completed a detailed test yet, but the "dot -V" in %post needs to be
changed to "dot -c"   Something like:

# run "dot -c" to generate plugin config in %{_libdir}/%{name}/config
%post
%{_bindir}/dot -c

%post tcl
%{_bindir}/dot -c 
%post devel
%{_bindir}/dot -c


In graphviz-cairo it needs:

# run dot once to update %{_libdir}/graphviz/config for new plugins
%post
%{_bindir}/dot -c
update-mime-database %{_datadir}/mime >/dev/null

# run dot once to update %{_libdir}/graphviz/config for remaining plugins
%postun
if test -x %{_bindir}/dot; then %{_bindir}/dot -c; fi
update-mime-database %{_datadir}/mime >/dev/null


Is graphviz-cairo in CVS?  I'm not able to checkout for some reason.

I fixed the dot -c stuff.

No graphviz-cairo is not yet in CVS, as nobody has approved it yet...

The ' 2>/dev/null' on the 'dot -c' is not needed.  'dot -c' should normally be
quiet.   Probably don't want error messages to be suppressed.

Do I need to do something for graphviz-cairo?

OK. The dev/null has been removed from both packages.

No, you don't NEED to do anything, but you CAN and I would appreciate it very
much if you can check the spec and approve the package for fedora extras - if
you think you can.

curl isn't working for me.  Is this a known problem?  wget works ok.  see below.

What form should an approval from me take?   Is an "I approve" in this thread
sufficient?

I am not an approved Fedora developer.  Nobody wanted to go to bat for
me here to explain what that means to the AT&T lawyers.



------------------------------------------------------------

ellson@ellson:devel> pwd
/home/ellson/FIX/Linux.i686/build/fedora-extras/graphviz/devel
ellson@ellson:devel> make
Downloading graphviz-2.6.tar.gz...
  % Total    % Received % Xferd  Average Speed   Time    Time     Time  Current
                                 Dload  Upload   Total   Spent    Left  Speed
  0     0    0     0    0     0      0      0 --:--:-- --:--:-- --:--:--     0
curl: (52) Empty reply from server
make: *** [graphviz-2.6.tar.gz] Error 52
ellson@ellson:devel> curl
http://www.graphviz.org/pub/graphviz/ARCHIVE/graphviz-2.6.tar.gz
curl: (52) Empty reply from server
ellson@ellson:devel> wget
http://www.graphviz.org/pub/graphviz/ARCHIVE/graphviz-2.6.tar.gz
--09:05:17--  http://www.graphviz.org/pub/graphviz/ARCHIVE/graphviz-2.6.tar.gz
           => `graphviz-2.6.tar.gz'
Resolving www.graphviz.org... 192.20.225.20
Connecting to www.graphviz.org|192.20.225.20|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 4,109,848 (3.9M) [application/x-gzip]

100%[=====================================================================================>]
4,109,848      1.68M/s

09:05:19 (1.68 MB/s) - `graphviz-2.6.tar.gz' saved [4109848/4109848]

ellson@ellson:devel>

(In reply to comment #24)
> curl isn't working for me.  Is this a known problem?  wget works ok.  see below.

The curl/wget problem is known (at least to me)... I never sent in any
bugreport... :-/
 
> What form should an approval from me take?   Is an "I approve" in this thread
> sufficient?

Yes, if you approve the package then it's OK to approve it here.

But the package needs to be approved following

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageReviewGuidelines

this guidelines...
 
> I am not an approved Fedora developer.  Nobody wanted to go to bat for
> me here to explain what that means to the AT&T lawyers.

AFAIK. Joinin' the Fedora Extras shouldn't be a problem for AT&T, as it is your
private interesst... But I'm also not a lawyer... :-/

OK.  I'll take another shot at the formalities...

Meanwhile, informally, I've tested your spec on Rawhide on i386 and x86_64
and successfully built and installed binary rpms.   So it looks good to me.

Fine. That's good to hear...

After the change with dot -V to dot -c, also dotedit works (buggy, but working)...

Ville, I think you indicated that you would sponsor my cvsextras access?
The request for sponsor has just been posted, I believe.

Yep, I've just clicked the "sponsor" button in the accounts system.  Welcome! 
 
Now, the next thing to do would be to decide which of you guys (or both) will 
be the graphviz maintainer in FE. 

Thank you (again), Ville.

To be honest, I'd prefer if Oliver kept the role for the moment as
I greatly appreciate having the extra set of eyes on the project.

OK, so I will. :-)
Shall I request build for graphviz 2.6 - I mean, do you think it's OK the way it
is currently?

(Ville, may I ask you to approve graphviz-cairo!?)

I don't have a Rawhide box, so I'm afraid I can't help too much with -cairo. 
 
John, feel free to add yourself to initial Cc list for graphviz bugs in CVS 
(owners.list in the "owners" module), and it'll auto-propagate to Bugzilla. 

OK, I'll have to wait 'til somebody else comes across -cairo...

Re #32.  I believe graphviz-2.6 is ready to go. (I think I might be allowed to
say APPROVED now?  But somehow it seems out of place for me to do that for my
own package???)

Re #33.  I've added myself to the owners cc list for graphviz

Re #34.  Is there something I should do? Should I be requesting a review on
fedora-extras?

OK, I'll request a build in -devel. That shouldn't be too bad.

I saw, that you have added yourself... :-)

No, nothing you have to do at this moment...