Bug 175500

These look pretty good (apart from the added tabs, when the spec files used
spaces ;-)). Have you tried to modify and build some applications using them?
(just to know if it'll be easy or not), like audacity for instance?

If no one else steps up, I wouldn't mind reviewing the packages, but I'll
need to do some further testing.

Matthias -- by all means, please review. :)

Packages that will need to have their spec file updated for the change :
- audacity
- bochs
- comical
- pgadmin3
- scorched3d

I've only tested a rebuild of audacity, and it worked fine changing just :
- The BuildRequires to add "compat-"
- The %build section to add just before the %configure line :
  export WX_CONFIG="%{_bindir}/wx-2.4-config"

Please consider applying the spec file patch I'll attach as it fixes many
minor cosmetic issues in the spec file. It also changes to 755 the mode of
the %ghost'ed script, so that rpmlint stops complaining.

Created attachment 122410 [details]
Spec file patch

Created attachment 122411 [details]
Spec file patch

Since the patches only contain minor changes, I already approve both packages.

I see these have been imported, but only compat-wxGTK bas been built in FC5, is
that wanted? What about FC4?

There's a conflict in the virtual Provides of the published packages!

Currently both  wxGTK-devel  and  compat-wxGTK2-devel  as well as
wxGTK  and  compat-wxGTK2  contain

  "Provides: wxGTK2-devel = some version"
and
  "Provides: wxGTK2 = some version"

This makes them competing packages. You cannot do this, as wxGTK and
compat-wxGTK2 are _not_ equivalent. It causes RPM to let the newer
version win, which results in removal of the packages with the older
versions during installation or in a failed transaction check.

compat-wxGTK2-devel is broken!

$ wxgtk2-2.4-config --cflags
-I/usr/lib/wx/include/gtk2-2.4 -DGTK_NO_CHECK_CASTS -D__WXGTK__
-D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -D_LARGE_FILES

It points to  /usr/lib/wx/include/gtk2-2.4  but the compat-wxGTK2-devel
package contains headers in a different path:

/usr/lib/wx/include/gtk-2.4/wx/setup.h

On the contrary, compat-wxGTK-devel is okay.

Michael -- what's your advice for resolving comment #8? I'd not like to remove
that from the main wxGTK package, but it seems necessary here....

Re: comment 9

--- compat-wxGTK.spec.~1.2.~    2006-01-06 18:52:38.000000000 +0100
+++ compat-wxGTK.spec   2006-03-17 21:51:27.000000000 +0100
@@ -288,7 +288,7 @@
 %ghost %{_bindir}/wx-2.4-config
 %{_bindir}/wxgtk2-*-config
 %{_libdir}/libwx_gtk2[-_]*.so
-%{_libdir}/wx/include/gtk-2*
+%{_libdir}/wx/include/gtk2-2*
 
 %files common -f wxstd.lang
 %defattr(-,root,root,-)


Re: comment 10

Remove the Provides from the compat-wxGTK2{-devel} packages, but not
from the new wxGTK{-devel} packages.

Btw, compat-wxGTK{-devel} must not "Provides: wxGTK = ..." and
"Provides: wxGTK-devel = ..." either.

And then any packages which link against this must work just by virtue of the
automatic library deps, and any which have explict requires statements must be
fixed, yeah?

> And then any packages which link against this must work just
> by virtue of the automatic library deps

That's how ordinary "compat-" packages work anyway. You let a _new_
compat- package provide the SONAMES needed by old binaries. The
SONAME dependencies don't care which package contains the needed
files.

> and any which have explict requires statements must be
> fixed, yeah?

Those packages are broken by design.

Same applies to BuildRequires and the current brokeness due to these
"virtual provides" madness. A package which "BuildRequires: wxGTK2-devel"
cannot be built with compat-wxGTK2-devel which "Provides: wxGTK2-devel"
and vice versa.

Make sense. And is ideal, because it's someone else's problem. *grin*

Looks like compat-wxPythonGTK2 hasn't yet been built on devel or FC-5.  Causes
some problems like bug #188215.

The specific code in bug #188215 (simply importing wxPython) should work fine
with the new 2.6.x wxPython.

When will the new packages be available? The code i would like to use is mainly
incompatible with wx2.6, so the packages are going to be needed! 
As of today, i only see the old package:
wxPythonGTK2.i386                        2.4.2.4-7              extras
in extras, and it doesn't work (cf bug #188215)

New packages should now be available.

Shouldn't package reviews be closed as NEXTRELEASE?

Ehh. Semantics.

I think of NEXTRELEASE as "FC-6" as opposed to "Immediately in repo", but I
could see either being valid.

They're built. That's what really matters, right? :)

(In reply to comment #21)
> Ehh. Semantics.
> 
> I think of NEXTRELEASE as "FC-6" as opposed to "Immediately in repo", but I
> could see either being valid.

Sure, just wondering whether the process had changed.  I was going off of step
14 of:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/NewPackageProcess 

> They're built. That's what really matters, right? :)

Indeed, thank you.