Spec URL: http://cicku.me/giza.spec SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/giza-0.9.3-1.fc24.src.rpm Description: Giza is a 2D scientific plotting library built on cairo. It provides uniform output to pdf, ps, png and X-Windows. It was written as a direct replacement for PGPLOT (non-free). Fedora Account System Username: cicku
*** Bug 1187030 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
The resulting giza binary packages cannot be installed: "Error: nothing provides libgiza.so()(64bit) needed by giza-devel-0.9.3-1.fc23.x86_64" I had resolved this in my own package by adding the SONAME field during the build stage of the shared libraries.
1. Libraries libpgplot.so.* and libcpgplot.so.* are missing which implies that /usr/share/doc/giza-devel/interface /usr/share/doc/giza-devel/interface/giza-cpgplot.c /usr/share/doc/giza-devel/interface/giza-fortran.F90 /usr/share/doc/giza-devel/interface/giza-pgplot.f90 can then be removed. 2. Symbolic link libgiza.so.0.9.3 -> libgiza.so.0 should be added. 3. Pkgconfig files cpgplot.pc, giza.pc, and pgplot.pc are missing. They have to provided by the packager because they are not provided by upstream.
(In reply to Joachim Frieben from comment #2) > The resulting giza binary packages cannot be installed: > > "Error: nothing provides libgiza.so()(64bit) needed by > giza-devel-0.9.3-1.fc23.x86_64" > > I had resolved this in my own package by adding the SONAME field during the > build stage of the shared libraries. There must be something wrong with my server, I checked and found the final one for submission wasn't uploaded successfully, sorry. (In reply to Joachim Frieben from comment #3) > 1. Libraries libpgplot.so.* and libcpgplot.so.* are missing which implies > that > /usr/share/doc/giza-devel/interface > /usr/share/doc/giza-devel/interface/giza-cpgplot.c > /usr/share/doc/giza-devel/interface/giza-fortran.F90 > /usr/share/doc/giza-devel/interface/giza-pgplot.f90 > can then be removed. Good catch, giza-fortran.F90 should be preserved, others are dropped. > 2. Symbolic link libgiza.so.0.9.3 -> libgiza.so.0 should be added. I just followed the upstream makefile, but it's Ok, done. > 3. Pkgconfig files cpgplot.pc, giza.pc, and pgplot.pc are missing. They have > to provided by the packager because they are not provided by upstream. pgplot are in rpmfusion, so I can't add cpgplot.pc or pgplot.pc to the package. giza.pc is Ok, but without this is also fine I think. Splash may need it but current it bundles giza in sources. Spec URL: http://cicku.me/giza.spec SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/giza-0.9.3-2.fc24.src.rpm
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #4) "There must be something wrong with my server, I checked and found the final one for submission wasn't uploaded successfully, sorry." Name : giza Version : 0.9.3 Release : 2.fc24 .. Build Date : Tue 27 Oct 2015 01:51:29 AM CET [20:51:29 EDT] Build Host : t410i.cicku.me .. Hear, hear. If I look at the build date [20:51:29 EDT] and the submission date of comment 4 [20:57:09 EDT], respectively, I rather think it "wasn't uploaded successfully" because it simply did not exist yet .. pathetic!
(In reply to Joachim Frieben from comment #5) > Hear, hear. If I look at the build date [20:51:29 EDT] and the submission > date of comment 4 [20:57:09 EDT], respectively, I rather think it "wasn't > uploaded successfully" because it simply did not exist yet .. pathetic! You asked me to provide pkgconfig file, so I bumped the release and rebuild the package, otherwise you would still get 0.9.3-1.fc24 instead of 2.fc24.
This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag. You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group. Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned and will be closed. Thank you for your patience.
This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script. The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month. As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it.