Bug 250240
Summary: | Review Request: linkage - Lightweight bittorent client | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Adel Gadllah <adel.gadllah> | ||||||
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Denis Leroy <denis> | ||||||
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> | ||||||
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |||||||
Priority: | medium | ||||||||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | denis, fedora-package-review, notting | ||||||
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | denis:
fedora-review+
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: | 2007-09-09 09:06:45 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: | |||||||||
Attachments: |
|
Description
Adel Gadllah
2007-07-31 10:35:58 UTC
Fixed the plugin location in a better/cleaner way: http://tgmweb.at/gadllah/linkage.spec http://tgmweb.at/gadllah/linkage-0.1.2-2.fc7.src.rpm Remove the .la files in the new location: http://tgmweb.at/gadllah/linkage.spec http://tgmweb.at/gadllah/linkage-0.1.2-3.fc7.src.rpm mock build ends with: mkdir .libs g++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I.. -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp- buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic -I/usr/include/gtkmm-2.4 -I/usr/lib64/gtkmm-2.4/include -I/usr/include/glibmm-2.4 -I/usr/lib64/glibmm-2.4/include -I/usr/include/gdkmm-2.4 -I/usr/lib64/gdkmm-2.4/include -I/usr/include/pangomm-1.4 - I/usr/include/atkmm-1.6 -I/usr/include/gtk-2.0 -I/usr/include/sigc++-2.0 -I/usr/lib64/sigc++-2.0/include -I/usr/incl ude/glib-2.0 -I/usr/lib64/glib-2.0/include -I/usr/lib64/gtk-2.0/include -I/usr/include/cairomm-1.0 -I/usr/include/pa ngo-1.0 -I/usr/include/cairo -I/usr/include/atk-1.0 -I/usr/include/libtorrent -I/usr/include/dbus-1.0 -I/usr/lib64/d bus-1.0/include -I/usr/include/glib-2.0 -I/usr/lib64/glib-2.0/include -DPLUGIN_DIR=\"/usr/lib64/linkage/plugins\" -O 2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generi c -MT liblinkage_1_la-keyfile.lo -MD -MP -MF .deps/liblinkage_1_la-keyfile.Tpo -c gtkmm_extra/keyfile.cc -fPIC -DPI C -o .libs/liblinkage_1_la-keyfile.o gtkmm_extra/keyfile.cc:28: error: redefinition of 'struct Glib::Container_Helpers::TypeTraits<bool>' /usr/include/glibmm-2.4/glibmm/containerhandle_shared.h:322: error: previous definition of 'struct Glib::Container_H elpers::TypeTraits<bool>' make[3]: *** [liblinkage_1_la-keyfile.lo] Error 1 make[3]: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/linkage-0.1.2/lib' make[2]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 make[2]: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/linkage-0.1.2/lib' make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/linkage-0.1.2' make: *** [all] Error 2 error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.76956 (%build) RPM build errors: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.76956 (%build) works fine here (F7 x86_64 in mock) can you attach your build.log file? Created attachment 160324 [details]
failed build log
This is the log after trying to build in devel/x86_64
Created attachment 160325 [details]
mock root
log for mock buildroot when build failed
ok, thx for the log. seems that it does not build against the gtkmm24 version in rawhide. added maintainer to CC... any ideas? upstream has fixed this in svn should I ship a svn snapshot or wait for the release? (In reply to comment #8) > upstream has fixed this in svn should I ship a svn snapshot or wait for the release? One way is to extract the needed patch from CVS. (In reply to comment #9) > (In reply to comment #8) > > upstream has fixed this in svn should I ship a svn snapshot or wait for the > release? > > One way is to extract the needed patch from CVS. > it isn't just a small patch but it moves the configuration stuff to use gconf... Updated to new upstream version, fixes the rawhide build issues. http://tgmweb.at/gadllah/linkage.spec http://tgmweb.at/gadllah/linkage-0.1.4-1.fc7.src.rpm Fixed many spec file issues and a runtime bug: http://tgmweb.at/gadllah/linkage.spec http://tgmweb.at/gadllah/linkage-0.1.4-2.fc7.src.rpm Hi Adel, 1. There as some unused-direct-shlib-dependency issues on liblinkage-1.so.0.0.3. See discussions at http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2006-June/msg00176.html http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2007-January/msg00158.html There's a "hack" used in a number of packages already (alliance, clamav), that simply patches the "-Wl,--as-needed" option into libtool right after configure. That looks to me like the simplest option. 2. The --prefix and --libdir options to configure are not necessary 3. libupnp-devel BR is not needed. The package looks for libgupnp, which appears to be something completely different (and not in fedora as of yet). There's also a libtorrent vs rb_libtorrent conflict that needs to be addressed at some point, though that's outside the scope of this review. (In reply to comment #13) > Hi Adel, > > 1. There as some unused-direct-shlib-dependency issues on liblinkage-1.so.0.0.3. > > See discussions at > http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2006-June/msg00176.html > http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2007-January/msg00158.html > > There's a "hack" used in a number of packages already (alliance, clamav), that > simply patches the "-Wl,--as-needed" option into libtool right after configure. > That looks to me like the simplest option. > ok thx, added this hack for now. > 2. The --prefix and --libdir options to configure are not necessary removed. > 3. libupnp-devel BR is not needed. The package looks for libgupnp, which appears > to be something completely different (and not in fedora as of yet). upstream changed the upnp lib in 0.1.4 removed this for now (package not in fedora) Updated package: http://tgmweb.at/gadllah/linkage.spec http://tgmweb.at/gadllah/linkage-0.1.4-3.fc7.src.rpm Some more nitpicks :-) - Patches are traditionally named something like <name>-<version>-tag.patch, where version if the upstream version the patch was generated from (and not necessarily that of the spec itself). Could you rename the patch to "linkage-0.1.4-plugindir.patch" ? - Exporting the '-Wl,--as-needed' option will not work, due to a flaw/bug/feature in libtool (remember all compiler and linker flags are processed by libtool) : it'll move the linker option at the end of the command-line and that won't work (see discussions in the link I posted above). I used the following line after configure: # clean unused-direct-shlib-dependencies sed -i -e 's! -shared ! -Wl,--as-needed\0!g' libtool - Also, you don't need to set CFLAGS and CXXFLAGS before calling make. Review will be approved after these fixes. OK fixed: http://tgmweb.at/gadllah/linkage.spec http://tgmweb.at/gadllah/linkage-0.1.4-4.fc7.src.rpm Review: OK: rpmlint W: linkage non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/linkage.schemas (that's fine) W: linkage-devel no-documentation (that's fine also) OK: name is according to guidelines OK: package meets guidelines OK: License is GPLv2+ OK: Source code matches upstream OK: Compiles and works OK: Calls ldconfig OK: BRs ok, builds in mock OK: locale handled correctly OK: owns all created directories OK: %files section is clean OK: headers and *.so are in -devel package OK: *.la removed OK: desktop file handled correctly OK: seems to work just fine, tested on i386 and x86_64 APPROVED New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: linkage Short Description: Lightweight bittorent client Owners: drago01 Branches: FC-6 F7 devel InitialCC: Cvsextras Commits: no Watch out, it won't build on FC-6: it doesn't have libnotify >= 0.4.4 Also, for F7, be sure to mark the License as GPL rather than GPLv2+... thx for catching this, why should I mark the License GPL on F7 ? ------------------------------------------- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: linkage Short Description: Lightweight bittorent client Owners: drago01 Branches: F7 devel InitialCC: Cvsextras Commits: no cvs done. Umm, you need to mark the License as GPLv2+ on all branches. Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: linkage New Branches: F-9 All packages have been branched for F-9 now. cvs done. |