Bug 192052 (bitgtkmm)

Spec URL: http://miskatonic.cs.nmsu.edu/pub/bitgtkmm.spec

SRPM URL: http://miskatonic.cs.nmsu.edu/pub/fedora/5/srpms/bitgtkmm-0.2.1-2.src.rpm

Changes:
- Added AUTHORS and COPYING to bitgkmm main package
- Changed prdownloads.sf.net to download.sf.net

Spec URL: http://miskatonic.cs.nmsu.edu/pub/bitgtkmm.spec

SRPM URL: http://miskatonic.cs.nmsu.edu/pub/fedora/5/srpms/bitgtkmm-0.2.2-1.src.rpm

Changes:
- New upstream release
- Removed *.md5, *.map and *.dot in upstream package
- Changed mv of docs to cp

%build
%configure --enable-static=no
%{__make} %{?_smp_mflags}

%install
%{__rm} -rf %{buildroot}

make DESTDIR=%{buildroot} install

You need to be consistant with using macros. Either constantly use %{__make} or
just plain make

I'll look some more later

Ahh, good catch. %{__make} is probably better. I'll change it in papyrus too.

Builds fine in mock. However.

Blocker : For the devel, you need to add bitgtkmm to the Requires list
Blocker : run rpm -qa --requires on the installed bitgtkmm. Quite a lot of the
output are for standard libs, but you cannot rely on people having gtkmm
installed (or a few of the others)

Fix these and we should be good to go (more or less!)

> Blocker : For the devel, you need to add bitgtkmm to the Requires list

It's there. It's in the standard devel line, right above the specific requires 
that I add for bitgtkmm:
  Requires:         %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
Puts a specific dependency on the main package and the specific version and 
release that the headers belong to.

How about if I change it to:
  Requires:         bitgtkmm = %{version}-%{release}

> Blocker : run rpm -qa --requires on the installed bitgtkmm. Quite a lot of the
> output are for standard libs, but you cannot rely on people having gtkmm
> installed (or a few of the others)

Those are all added by rpmbuild.

8-->
It's there. It's in the standard devel line, right above the specific requires 
that I add for bitgtkmm:
  Requires:         %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
<--8

D'oh!

8-->
> Blocker : run rpm -qa --requires on the installed bitgtkmm. Quite a lot of the
> output are for standard libs, but you cannot rely on people having gtkmm
> installed (or a few of the others)

Those are all added by rpmbuild.
<--8

No. These are packages required to run. Say I didn't have atkmm on my machine
(just as an example). Without the R atkmm being explictly states in the spec
file, the package would know no better until it gets to a point that atkmm is
needed and then it falls over dead.

I had a similar problem with Anjuta-1.2.4a a while back in that gtkmm was not in
as an explicit R. However, when you came to try and create a gtkmm package, the
software complained like crazy. Add the R line for gtkmm and everything was
happy again.

> No. These are packages required to run. Say I didn't have atkmm on my machine
> (just as an example). Without the R atkmm being explictly states in the spec
> file, the package would know no better until it gets to a point that atkmm is
> needed and then it falls over dead.

Check out:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Requires

rpmbuild adds the requires, such as (continuing with the atkmm example):
libatkmm-1.6.so.1()(64bit)

If you try and install bitgtkmm, rpm will complain that libatkmm-1.6.so.1 is 
required. If you're using yum, it will look up libatkmm-1.6.so.1 as a library 
in atkmm and add atkmm to the dependency installs.

The situation you ran into with Anjuta was a little different. The reason why 
you had to explicitly add it was that the Anjuta runtime didn't have a 
dependency on the gtkmm runtime libraries, so rpmbuild didn't add it to the rpm 
requires.

Yep. You're right.

Okay - let's get on with this!

Good
----

Builds fine in mock (x86)
Spec file checks out fine - no dupes, no problems with permissions,
documentation included in subpackages, consistent use of macros, no BR problems
Package installs fine, rpmlint shows nothing of importance on the packages
(installed or as rpms)


Niggles
-------

Unhappy with the *.so things in the %files and %files devel, but this is down to
me and nothing that can be blocked.

I can't see any other problems with this.

APPROVED

The -devel package includes a .pc file, which is useless without pkgconfig, ergo
the -devel package should Require: pkgconfig

See also:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/IRCLog20060706

Thanks - rpm -qa --provides though didn't show this. I'll remember this for
future spec files.

> Unhappy with the *.so things in the %files and %files devel

> The -devel package includes a .pc file, which is useless without pkgconfig, ergo
> the -devel package should Require: pkgconfig

Fixed in the first build.