Spec Name or Url: http://linuxelectronique.free.fr/download/fedora/4/SPECS/pikdev.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://linuxelectronique.free.fr/download/fedora/4/SRPMS/pikdev-0.8.2-1.src.rpm Description: PiKdev is a simple IDE dedicated to the development of PIC based applications under KDE. Features: - Integrated editor - Project management - Integrated programming engine for 12, 14 and 16 bits PIC (flash or EPROM technology) - Support for parallel and serial port programmers - KDE compliant look-and-feel
Spec Name or Url: http://linuxelectronique.free.fr/download/fedora/4/SPECS/pikdev.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://linuxelectronique.free.fr/download/fedora/4/SRPMS/pikdev-0.8.2-2.src.rpm %changelog * Tue Jan 10 2006 Alain Portal <aportal[AT]univ-montp2[DOT]fr> 0.8.2-2 - Add the %{?dist} macro
Spec Name or Url: http://linuxelectronique.free.fr/download/fedora/4/SPECS/pikdev.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://linuxelectronique.free.fr/download/fedora/4/SRPMS/pikdev-0.8.4-2.src.rpm %changelog * Tue Jan 31 2006 Alain Portal <aportal[AT]univ-montp2[DOT]fr> 0.8.4-2 - Don't use the precompiled version of pkp * Mon Jan 30 2006 Alain Portal <aportal[AT]univ-montp2[DOT]fr> 0.8.4-1 - New upstream version
Doesn't build on development due to X modularization. No Package Found for xorg-x11-devel http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Xorg/Modularization
Actually, you can avoid the issue with X modularization, becuase you do not need BuildRequires xorg-x11-devel because qt-devel needs it, and in turn you don't need qt-devel because kdelibs-devel needs it. %{_datadir}/apps/%{name}/* You have to own %{_datadir}/apps/pikdev/ itself. Drop the *.
Thanks for review. Spec Name or Url: http://linuxelectronique.free.fr/download/fedora/4/SPECS/pikdev.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://linuxelectronique.free.fr/download/fedora/4/SRPMS/pikdev-0.8.4-3.src.rpm %changelog * Wed Mar 08 2006 Alain Portal <aportal[AT]univ-montp2[DOT]fr> 0.8.4-3 - Remove useless BuildRequires qt-devel, xorg-x11-devel for FE5 - Package must own %{_datadir}/apps/%{name} directory
Good: - rpmlint checks return clean - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license (GPL) OK, text in %doc, matches source - spec file legible, in am. english, and french - source matches upstream - package compiles on devel (x86_64) - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - locales handled by %find_lang - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - .desktop file APPROVED
Thanks for review! Unfortunately, pikdev fails to build on ppc. Could somebody have a look? http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/logs/fedora-development-extras/6310-pikdev-0.8.4-3.fc5/
(In reply to comment #7) > Unfortunately, pikdev fails to build on ppc. > http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/logs/fedora-development-extras/6310-pikdev-0.8.4-3.fc5/ Looks like non-portable code to me. AFAICT (I don't have access to ppc systems, but have the glibc2 sources), sys/io.h is not available as part of the ppc's glibc2. Besides this, I see more issues: The i386 log shows the package stripping executables/libraries and not correctly propagating RPM_OPT_FLAGS.
(In reply to comment #8) > > Looks like non-portable code to me. AFAICT (I don't have access to ppc systems, > but have the glibc2 sources), sys/io.h is not available as part of the ppc's glibc2. So, what I have to do: - exclude ppc arch? - try to find if exist a file which provide similar functions? > Besides this, I see more issues: The i386 log shows the package stripping > executables/libraries and not correctly propagating RPM_OPT_FLAGS. I have no experience about that. What I have to do?
(In reply to comment #9) > (In reply to comment #8) > So, what I have to do: > - exclude ppc arch? That's one option, suiteable as a short term aid. > - try to find if exist a file which provide similar functions? Better contact upstream and let them solve this issue. > > Besides this, I see more issues: The i386 log shows the package stripping > > executables/libraries and not correctly propagating RPM_OPT_FLAGS. > > I have no experience about that. What I have to do? There are at least 2 issues: 1. Makefile.pkp is broken It suffers from 2 issues: a) It uses "gcc -lstdc++" to link. This is a bug. It must use "g++" to link. b) You must propagate RPM_OPT_FLAGS to it The least intrusive approach to both problems would be to override Makefile.pkp's hard-coded crap from make's command line inside of the spec, i.e. to use something along this line: make -f Makefile.pkp \ CCPP=g++ \ LINK=g++ \ CCPPOPT="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS -DPKP_VERSION=0.8.4" \ LIBS= 2. You are using "make install-strip" This will strip executables during installation and render debug-infos unusable. Simply use "make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_DIR" instead of "make install-strip DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_DIR"
(In reply to comment #10) > (In reply to comment #9) > > (In reply to comment #8) > > So, what I have to do: > > - exclude ppc arch? > That's one option, suiteable as a short term aid. Done. > > - try to find if exist a file which provide similar functions? > Better contact upstream and let them solve this issue. Done. > > > Besides this, I see more issues: The i386 log shows the package stripping > > > executables/libraries and not correctly propagating RPM_OPT_FLAGS. > > > > I have no experience about that. What I have to do? > There are at least 2 issues: > > 1. Makefile.pkp is broken > It suffers from 2 issues: > a) It uses "gcc -lstdc++" to link. > This is a bug. It must use "g++" to link. > b) You must propagate RPM_OPT_FLAGS to it > > The least intrusive approach to both problems would be to override > Makefile.pkp's hard-coded crap from make's command line inside of the spec, i.e. > to use something along this line: > > make -f Makefile.pkp \ > CCPP=g++ \ > LINK=g++ \ > CCPPOPT="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS -DPKP_VERSION=0.8.4" \ > LIBS= Done. > 2. You are using "make install-strip" > This will strip executables during installation and render debug-infos unusable. > Simply use > "make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_DIR" > instead of > "make install-strip DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_DIR" Done. Buildsys reports no error. Could you please have a look on build.log to see if everything is really OK before I close this bug? http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/logs/fedora-development-extras/6363-pikdev-0.8.4-4.fc5/
Alain, Do you know or have tested piklab [1]? The project description is here: http://piklab.sourceforge.net/devel.php jpo References: [1] Homepage: http://piklab.sourceforge.net/
(In reply to comment #12) > Alain, > > Do you know or have tested piklab [1]? Not really. Just have a quick look when the first version (0.1.0) was released. Why? Do you want I package it?
Strange... pikdev failed to build on FC-4 on x86_64 because ./configure couldn't find qt lib. http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/logs/fedora-4-extras/6368-pikdev-0.8.4-4.fc4/ Any idea on how to fix?
(In reply to comment #14) > Strange... > pikdev failed to build on FC-4 on x86_64 because ./configure couldn't find qt > lib. > http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/logs/fedora-4-extras/6368-pikdev-0.8.4-4.fc4/ Even stranger: I could reproduce it on i386/FC4! [No idea why this didn't fail inside of the buildsys. Does the buildsys set QTDIR?] > Any idea on how to fix? Try adding this right before the %configure inside of the spec [ -n "$QTDIR" ] || . %{_sysconfdir}/profile.d/qt.sh
(In reply to comment #15) > (In reply to comment #14) > > Strange... > > pikdev failed to build on FC-4 on x86_64 because ./configure couldn't find qt > > lib. > > http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/logs/fedora-4-extras/6368-pikdev-0.8.4-4.fc4/ > > Even stranger: I could reproduce it on i386/FC4! Sorry, I don't understand: you said build failed on i386/FC4? But this is my config, and I build successfully... > [No idea why this didn't fail inside of the buildsys. > Does the buildsys set QTDIR?] > > > Any idea on how to fix? > Try adding this right before the %configure inside of the spec > > [ -n "$QTDIR" ] || . %{_sysconfdir}/profile.d/qt.sh Done.
(In reply to comment #15) > (In reply to comment #14) > > Strange... > > pikdev failed to build on FC-4 on x86_64 because ./configure couldn't find qt > > lib. > > http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/logs/fedora-4-extras/6368-pikdev-0.8.4-4.fc4/ > > Even stranger: I could reproduce it on i386/FC4! > > [No idea why this didn't fail inside of the buildsys. > Does the buildsys set QTDIR?] > > > Any idea on how to fix? > Try adding this right before the %configure inside of the spec > > [ -n "$QTDIR" ] || . %{_sysconfdir}/profile.d/qt.sh Argghhh ! Build fails, $QTDIR seems to be set. http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/logs/fedora-4-extras/6375-pikdev-0.8.4-5.fc4/
Please remember to file a separate bug about ExcludeArch: ppc and make it block bug 179260 (see that bug and http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines#head-2f03bba0a9f05b2ac0128eb1d70b1e3ce9f9dc40 for more info).
(In reply to comment #18) > Please remember to file a separate bug about ExcludeArch: ppc and make it block > FE-ExcludeArch-ppc (see that bug and > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines#head-2f03bba0a9f05b2ac0128eb1d70b1e3ce9f9dc40 > for more info). Done. Could you please have a look and tell me if everything is OK? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185615
(In reply to comment #14) > Strange... > pikdev failed to build on FC-4 on x86_64 because ./configure couldn't find qt > lib. > http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/logs/fedora-4-extras/6368-pikdev-0.8.4-4.fc4/ > > Any idea on how to fix? Should I have to excludearch x86_64 on FC-4?
%changelog * Thu Mar 23 2006 Alain Portal <aportal[AT]univ-montp2[DOT]fr> 0.8.4-7 - No fix. So, remove the previous change - Definitely exclude arch x86_64 for FC-4 * Thu Mar 23 2006 Alain Portal <aportal[AT]univ-montp2[DOT]fr> 0.8.4-6 - $QTDIR is set. So, remove the previous change - Try to fix x86_64 build failure by adding BR qt-devel * Wed Mar 15 2006 Alain Portal <aportal[AT]univ-montp2[DOT]fr> 0.8.4-5 - Source qt.sh if $QTDIR isn't set. Always Ralf... * Wed Mar 15 2006 Alain Portal <aportal[AT]univ-montp2[DOT]fr> 0.8.4-4 - Exclude temporarily ppc arch because <sys/io.h> don't exist in ppc glibc headers - Override compiler for pkp Makefile and propagate $RPM_OPT_FLAGS on it - Make install instead of install-strip - Contributions of Ralf Corsepius <rc040203[AT]freenet[DOT].de> Thanks to him.
Put this before %configure: unset QTDIR || : ; . /etc/profile.d/qt.sh export QTLIB=${QTDIR}/lib QTINC=${QTDIR}/include at least until bug #169132 is backported/released for FC-4.
(In reply to comment #22) > Put this before %configure: > unset QTDIR || : ; . /etc/profile.d/qt.sh > export QTLIB=${QTDIR}/lib QTINC=${QTDIR}/include Work fine! Thanks. > at least until bug #169132 is backported/released for FC-4. This bug is closed in rawhide since 6 months Why not fixed in FC-4?
See comment in bug #185615. The PPC build is trivial to fix -- please do so. And please pay a _little_ more attention before deciding to exclude architectures.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: pikdev Updated Fedora Owners: alain.portal Please, add my home email in comps because I'm on vacation for 6 weeks.
added
Package Change Request ======================= Package Name: pikdev Short Description: IDE for development of PICmicro based application Owners: chitlesh Branches: EL-5 EL-6
cvs done.