Bug 802082

Summary:	xcb-util now consists of several upstreams packages
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Göran Uddeborg <goeran>
Component:	xcb-util	Assignee:	Adam Jackson <ajax>
Status:	CLOSED NOTABUG	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	unspecified	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	17	CC:	ajax, rdieter
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	x86_64
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2012-03-29 20:30:59 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:

Description Göran Uddeborg 2012-03-10 22:52:14 UTC

Description of problem:
I trying to compile a program (mcwm) which uses xcb-util.  In particular, it includes the file xcb_keysyms.h.  In F16 that file is included in xcb-util-devel 0.3.6.

In F17 that header file is no longer part of xcb-util-devel 0.3.8.  It appears the reason is that upstreams has split up xcb-util into several packages in 0.3.8.  In addition to xcb-util there is xcb-util-image, xcb-util-keysyms, xcb-util-renderutil, and xcb-util-wm.  (And obviously, I will need at least xcb-util-keysyms.)

It seems to me it would make sense to package all of these for Fedora.  I'm writing this report on the assumption that the package was simply upgraded without anyone noticing the split.  Or maybe I'm wrong?  Maybe there was a conscious decision to omit the separated packages for some reason?

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
xcb-util-0.3.8-2.fc17.x86_64

Comment 1 Rex Dieter 2012-03-29 20:30:59 UTC

Yep, looks like xcb-util upstream spilt things up starting with 0.3.8, so not strictly a downstream/package bug *here* per-se.  Just means that someone needs to some work to package the new components (like any other new package coming to fedora).

Comment 2 Göran Uddeborg 2012-03-30 18:06:06 UTC

It's certainly not a "bug" really.  I just thought it would be natural for the same packager to handle all of the packages, since they probably should be released together.  But it that's not the plan, then sure, we are waiting for a packager for them.  (I'll consider doing it in a little while, if no one else does it before me.)