Bug 204168
Summary: | Review Request: libgeda - the library needed by gEDA applications. | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Chitlesh GOORAH <chitlesh> | ||||||||
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Mamoru TASAKA <mtasaka> | ||||||||
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> | ||||||||
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |||||||||
Priority: | medium | ||||||||||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | hdegoede, wk | ||||||||
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | kevin:
fedora-cvs+
|
||||||||
Target Release: | --- | ||||||||||
Hardware: | All | ||||||||||
OS: | Linux | ||||||||||
Whiteboard: | |||||||||||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |||||||||
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||||||
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||||||
Last Closed: | 2006-08-30 19:32:07 UTC | Type: | --- | ||||||||
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- | ||||||||
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |||||||||
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |||||||||
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |||||||||
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |||||||||
Embargoed: | |||||||||||
Bug Depends On: | |||||||||||
Bug Blocks: | 163779, 204598, 204605 | ||||||||||
Attachments: |
|
Description
Chitlesh GOORAH
2006-08-26 10:07:52 UTC
*** Bug 177107 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** I'll be using this library to push the Geda suite to FE. Review for libgeda: 1. From http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines : * BuildRequires - pkgconfig is not needed because: glib2-devel requires pkgconfig and gtk2-devel (written) requires glib2-devel - added texi2html as BR to set HTML file creation enabled However, no HTML documents are installed and I cannot see the place where /usr/bin/texi2html is used in build log. Is texi2html needed? * Requires - -devel package. Check precisely the Requires of -devel package as the requirement of -devel package cannot be pulled automatically. /usr/lib/pkgconfig/libgeda.pc says: Libs: -L${libdir} -lgeda -pthread -lguile -L/lib -lglib-2.0 \ -L/lib -lgdk_pixbuf-2.0 ...... This means that this package (libgeda-devel) requires guile-devel, glib2-devel, gtk2-devel, ....... Add all these requirement, then remove redundant packages. For example, glib2-devel is requires by gtk2-devel, so explicit requirement of "glib2-devel" is not necessary. * Scriptlets requirements Add /sbin/ldconfig to main Requires(postun) . 2. Fro http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines : 3. Other things I have noticed: * %exclude %{_libdir}/libgeda.la Well, finally %{_libdir}/libgeda.la is not installed, so remove this file on %install stage (rm -f $BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}/*.la) and get rid of this entry. * %doc Why do main and -devel packages have the same documents? I'm stuck with my patch, which I found useless ! Normally lidgeda requires libgdgeda as BR I want to make libgeda to require libgd.so.2 instead, because there isn't much difference between gd and libgdgeda. But I simply can't find the proper place to patch it :( Could you please point it to me ? :) Wojciech Kazubski who was working on geda for FE previously already wrote a patch for this, see: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1479983&group_id=161080&atid=818428 (unfortunatly the lines got wrapped, so it won't apply unless you fix this) Here is a better version without the lines wrapped: http://archives.seul.org/geda/dev/Apr-2006/msg00076.html I've included 2 patches: http://chitlesh.googlepages.com/libgeda-20060123-4.src.rpm As you can see it has been patched correctly + echo 'Patch #0 (libgeda-20060123-arc.patch):' Patch #0 (libgeda-20060123-arc.patch): + patch -p0 -b --suffix o_arc_basic.c -s + echo 'Patch #1 (libgeda-20060123-configure.patch):' Patch #1 (libgeda-20060123-configure.patch): + patch -p0 -b --suffix configure.ac -s + exit 0 Executing(%build): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.81346 + umask 022 but sounds like not: GLIB library version: 2.11.1 GTK+ library version: 2.9.1 GUILE library version: 1.6.7 libgdgeda (png output): no mingw build: no data directory: /usr/share/gEDA rc directory: /usr/share/gEDA LIBGEDA .so version: 25:0:0 dmalloc debugging: no ElectricFence debugging: no Created attachment 135132 [details]
No-mock build log of libgeda (changed)
Well, do you mean that you want the following result of
configure (as attached in this comment)?
config.status: creating docs/Makefile
config.status: creating libgeda.pc
config.status: creating scripts/geda_totexi
config.status: creating scripts/notangle_guile
config.status: creating config.h
config.status: executing depfiles commands
config.status: executing geda_totexi-chmod commands
config.status: executing notangle_guile-chmod commands
** Configuration summary for libgeda 20060123:
GLIB library version: 2.12.2
GTK+ library version: 2.10.2
GUILE library version: 1.8.0
gdlib (png output): yes 2.0.33
mingw build: no
data directory: /usr/share/gEDA
rc directory: /usr/share/gEDA
LIBGEDA .so version: 25:0:0
dmalloc debugging: no
ElectricFence debugging: no
+ make -j3
make all-recursive
make[1]: Entering directory `/home/tasaka1/rpmbuild/BUILD/libgeda-20060123'
Making all in src
make[2]: Entering directory `/home/tasaka1/rpmbuild/BUILD/libgeda-20060123/src'
make all-am
make[3]: Entering directory `/home/tasaka1/rpmbuild/BUILD/libgeda-20060123/src'
Created attachment 135133 [details] spec file used on the above comment. spec file I used for the comment #7 . No patch is applied. Note: I have not checked yet by mock. However, if this result is suitable for you, again please upload spec and srpm file and I will check it. Note: your patch includes the parameter change of a function. I cannot apply this because I don't know what this means. If the parameter change you included in your patch is necessary, please do so. Another comment: Check the BR for this package and Requirement for -devel package. For me, normal rpmbuild (i.e. rebuild without mock) WITH GDLIB ENABLED add the Requirement of libX11.so.6 libXpm.so.4 libfontconfig.so.1 ibfreetype.so.6 libjpeg.so.62 libpng12.so.0 libz.so.1 So, maybe libX11-devel, libXpm-devel, ...... are missing for BR. And this changes /usr/lib/pkgconfig/libgeda.pc . With mock build. it says Libs: -L${libdir} -lgeda -pthread -lguile -L/lib -lglib-2.0 -L/lib -lgdk_pixbuf-2.0 -lm -lgobject-2.0 -lgmodule-2.0 -ldl -lglib-2.0 -L/lib -lgdk-x11-2.0 -lgdk_pixbuf-2.0 -lm -lpangocairo-1.0 -lpango-1.0 -lcairo -lgobject-2.0 -lgmodule-2.0 -ldl -lglib-2.0 But with normal build (and WITH GDLIB ENABLED) /usr/lib/pkgconfig/libgeda.pc says Libs: -L${libdir} -lgeda -pthread -lguile -L/usr/lib -lXpm -lX11 -ljpeg -lfontconfig -lfreetype -lpng12 -lz -lm -L/lib -lglib-2.0 -L/lib -lgdk_pixbuf-2.0 -lm -lgobject-2.0 -lgmodule-2.0 -ldl -lglib-2.0 -L/lib -lgdk-x11-2.0 -lgdk_pixbuf-2.0 -lm -lpangocairo-1.0 -lpango-1.0 -lcairo -lgobject-2.0 -lgmodule-2.0 -ldl -lglib-2.0 however with this spec file: http://chitlesh.googlepages.com/libgeda.spec It fails checking pkg-config is at least version 0.9.0... yes checking for gdlib_CFLAGS... checking for gdlib_LIBS... configure: error: Package requirements (gdlib >= 2.0.15) were not met. Consider adjusting the PKG_CONFIG_PATH environment variable if you installed software in a non-standard prefix. Alternatively you may set the gdlib_CFLAGS and gdlib_LIBS environment variables to avoid the need to call pkg-config. See the pkg-config man page for more details. error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.66151 (%build) RPM build errors: compared to yours, checking pkg-config is at least version 0.9.0... yes checking for gdlib_CFLAGS... checking for gdlib_LIBS... -lXpm -lX11 -ljpeg -lfontconfig -lfreetype -lpng12 -lz -lm checking for X... libraries , headers checking for gethostbyname... yes checking for connect... yes even though I don't feel it requires libgd.so.2 in yours too (In reply to comment #10) > however with this spec file: > http://chitlesh.googlepages.com/libgeda.spec > > It fails > checking pkg-config is at least version 0.9.0... yes > checking for gdlib_CFLAGS... > checking for gdlib_LIBS... > configure: error: Package requirements (gdlib >= 2.0.15) were not met. > Consider adjusting the PKG_CONFIG_PATH environment variable if you > installed software in a non-standard prefix. > > Alternatively you may set the gdlib_CFLAGS and gdlib_LIBS environment variables > to avoid the need to call pkg-config. See the pkg-config man page for > more details. > error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.66151 (%build) > > > RPM build errors: > > compared to yours, > checking pkg-config is at least version 0.9.0... yes > checking for gdlib_CFLAGS... > checking for gdlib_LIBS... -lXpm -lX11 -ljpeg -lfontconfig -lfreetype -lpng12 > -lz -lm > checking for X... libraries , headers > checking for gethostbyname... yes > checking for connect... yes > > > even though I don't feel it requires libgd.so.2 in yours too > So it means that this package don't have to libgd.so.2 , but have to use libXpm.so.?, libX11.so.?, .... etc. Also, "lXpm -lX11 -ljpeg -lfontconfig -lfreetype -lpng12 -lz -lm" is returned by "gdlib-config --libs". gdlib-config is included in gd-devel, so you cannot compile without gd-devel when my change applied. You seems to have commented out the requirement of gd-devel. If so this package cannot be built. > You seems to have commented out the requirement of gd-devel. If so this package cannot be built. It's to test it under mock Updated: SPEC: http://chitlesh.googlepages.com/libgeda.spec SRPM: http://chitlesh.googlepages.com/libgeda-20060123-5.src.rpm Created attachment 135187 [details] Mock build log of libgeda-20060123-5 I only tried to rebuild libgeda-20060123-5 (in the comment #12 ) (, which means that I have not checked about packaging or anything else of this package). I succeeded in rebuilding this in mock........ I attached the build log in mock. Well, now I will check this package Chitlesh, Have the libgd issues been fixed now, I'm kinda lost after the discussion above. If its not fixed and you want help can you explain what is the problem exactly? (In reply to comment #14) > Chitlesh, > > Have the libgd issues been fixed now, I'm kinda lost after the discussion above. It has already been fixed :) Review for libgeda-20060123-5: Almost okay. 1. From http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines : * Requires - Why does libgeda main package require texi2html ? = Requires for -devel package is now CORRECT . * BuildRequires - libXpm-devel libjpeg-devel libpng-devel <- all required by gd-devel - fontconfig-devel <- required by pango-devel <- required by gtk2-devel * File and Directory Ownership - Umm, I don't think that -doc package has to have /usr/share/doc/libgeda-doc-20060123/docs directory. All files in the directory can be moved to /usr/share/doc/libgeda-doc-20060123/ . Perhaps you want to write in -doc file entry %doc docs/* , not %docs/ 2. From http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines : = Nothing. 3. The other things I have noticed: = Nothing. Updated: Spec URL: http://chitlesh.funpic.de/rpm/libgeda.spec SRPM URL: http://chitlesh.funpic.de/rpm/libgeda-20060123-6.src.rpm Okay!! Now I am pleased to say that this package (libgeda) is APPROVED . New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: libgeda Short Description: Libraries for the gEDA project Owners: chitlesh Branches: EL-5 cvs done. |