Bug 480056
| Summary: | Review Request: libchamplain-gtk - Gtk+ widget wrapper for libchamplain | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Debarshi Ray <debarshir> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Denis Leroy <denis> |
| Status: | CLOSED NOTABUG | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | bugs.michael, deejay1, denis, fedora-package-review, notting |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2011-03-01 17:58:07 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: | 480050 | ||
| Bug Blocks: | |||
|
Description
Debarshi Ray
2009-01-14 19:31:33 UTC
Couple of things :
- you should not put "%{version}" macro in the patch0 source filename, since this will force you to rename it everytime you update the package. Although not officially in the guidelines, most people hardcode the version that the patch was derived from, and keep that version in the filename until the patch no longer applies and has to be recreated...
- why the pkgconfig patch ? I can see the development headers indeed only need libchamplain and gtk2 but this most likely will not stay true in the future. Seems a bit over the top...
Otherwise this is very similar to the libchamplain review...
Sorry for the delayed response. Till now libchamplain and libchamplain-gtk had two separate source trees, which has recently been merged into one. This happened earlier than I had predicted. However it will take some time for the first release from this merged tree. Therefore I am not sure whether we should go ahead with this review, because libchamplain-gtk will be very short-lived as a separate source package. Once the 0.4.x (or 0.3.x) releases come out from the unified tree, libchamplain-gtk will become a sub-package of libchamplain. What do you think? (In reply to comment #1) > Couple of things : > > - you should not put "%{version}" macro in the patch0 source filename, since > this will force you to rename it everytime you update the package. Although not > officially in the guidelines, most people hardcode the version that the patch > was derived from, and keep that version in the filename until the patch no > longer applies and has to be recreated... Yes, you are right. The reason I do it is to force myself to rebase the patches on every new upstream release to avoid any silly build failures due to the new RPM's zero fuzz tolerance, or have any ancient patches lying around. > - why the pkgconfig patch ? I can see the development headers indeed only need > libchamplain and gtk2 but this most likely will not stay true in the future. > Seems a bit over the top... In case they actually add any new dependencies then we will have to add it in the Spec (only on F10 since F11 auto-detects pkgconfig stuff) and modify/remove the patch accordingly. I have notified the upstream author and he seems to agree that the pkgconfig file might be faulty. It somehow does not feel right to knowingly distribute a faulty file. :-) About the merged source trees, can you ask upstream when this will likely happen ? (In reply to comment #3) > About the merged source trees, can you ask upstream when this will likely > happen ? While the SCMs have been merged, it will take some time, my guess is 2-3 months, before there is any release from this merged tree. Looks like libchamplain-gtk will continue to be a separate tarball for some more time. Spec: http://rishi.fedorapeople.org/libchamplain-gtk.spec SRPM: http://rishi.fedorapeople.org/libchamplain-gtk-0.2.9-1.fc10.src.rpm Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1246988 Hi Debarshi, Sorry for the delay. Let's get it over with, can you post updates to your spec and srpm ? Should this be closed as the gtk subpackage is already in http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/libchamplain/devel/ ? Yes, the packages have been merged, so there is no need to continue here anymore. |