Bug 442299
Summary: | Review Request: python-gtkextra - Python bindings for gtkextra | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Miloslav Trmač <mitr> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak> |
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-package-review, notting |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | lkundrak:
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: | 2008-04-30 12:52:22 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: |
Description
Miloslav Trmač
2008-04-14 02:12:29 UTC
1.) On 64 bit platforms files get installed into /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/gtk-2.0/gtkextra This causes the build to break since they are not included in plist, and also causes the module not to work at all. They should get into %{_libdir}/python2.5/site-packages/gtk-2.0/gtkextra instead 2.) Please consider usin dist tag 3.) %configure --disable-numpy Is there a reason to disable numpy? We have numpy in Fedora afaik. > 1.) On 64 bit platforms files get installed into > /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/gtk-2.0/gtkextra > > This causes the build to break since they are not included in plist, and also > causes the module not to work at all. They should get into > %{_libdir}/python2.5/site-packages/gtk-2.0/gtkextra instead Fixed by using %python_sitelib for these files. I really should have tried an all-arch build :( An unfortunate side-effect is File listed twice: /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/gtk-2.0/gtkextra on 32-bit architectures (once for %python_sitelib, once for %python_sitearch); I think that can be lived with. > 3.) %configure --disable-numpy > > Is there a reason to disable numpy? We have numpy in Fedora afaik. The package does not build with current numpy. Given that the last release of python-gtkextra happened four years ago, I'd prefer avoiding extensive patching (otherwise Fedora could become something like a new upstream for the package, and I currently don't care about it that much). If an user requests numpy support - or if you insist on it - I'll take a look and make it build (if not work), but I'd rather not. Other features of python-gtkextra that don't build were dealt with in the same manner - by removing them. New package is available at http://people.redhat.com/mitr/packaging/python-gtkextra-1.1.0-2.src.rpm , new spec file uploaded at the original URL. Does it work at all? It did not do for me when I used the package with changes equivalent to yours, until I moved the files to arch dependent destination. Doh, it doesn't. The Makefile.am was handling *.py and *.so separately, and I assumed they knew what they were doing... New package at http://people.redhat.com/mitr/packaging/python-gtkextra-1.1.0-3.src.rpm , tested to work with audit-viewer on x86_64. (In reply to comment #3) > > 3.) %configure --disable-numpy > > > > Is there a reason to disable numpy? We have numpy in Fedora afaik. > The package does not build with current numpy. Given that the last release of > python-gtkextra happened four years ago, I'd prefer avoiding extensive patching > (otherwise Fedora could become something like a new upstream for the package, > and I currently don't care about it that much). > > If an user requests numpy support - or if you insist on it - I'll take a look > and make it build (if not work), but I'd rather not. Other features of > python-gtkextra that don't build were dealt with in the same manner - by > removing them. Given there is a good reason to disable numpy support, I think it is not required. If someone requires numpy support, he can still open a bug report. 4.) python-gtkextra-1.1.0-update.patch What's this patch? Seems like a lot of unrelated changes -- is it a diff between release and a CVS snapshot? Please add a comment to it. 5.) rpmlint of python-gtkextra: python-gtkextra.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/python-gtkextra.pc Apart from these two, fairly minor, issues, I see no more problems. New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: python-gtkextra Short Description: Python bindings for gtkextra Owners: mitr Branches: F-9 InitialCC: Cvsextras Commits: yes cvs done. (In reply to comment #6)> > 4.) python-gtkextra-1.1.0-update.patch > > What's this patch? Seems like a lot of unrelated changes -- is it a diff between > release and a CVS snapshot? Please add a comment to it. It fixes or removes bitrotted code, allowing the package built. I have added a comment to the top of the patch. Thanks for all your comments! Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: python-gtkextra New Branches: F-8 cvs done. |