Bug 193191 - Review Request: rename of notify-daemon to notification-daemon
Review Request: rename of notify-daemon to notification-daemon
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: David Cantrell
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2006-05-25 18:14 EDT by John (J5) Palmieri
Modified: 2013-03-13 00:50 EDT (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2006-06-14 16:33:23 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description John (J5) Palmieri 2006-05-25 18:14:30 EDT
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/johnp/files/notification-daemon/notification-daemon.spec
SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/johnp/files/notification-daemon/notification-daemon-0.3.5-1.src.rpm
Description: This is a rename to match upstream's rename of the notification-daemon package
Comment 1 Brian Pepple 2006-05-25 19:34:04 EDT
Couple of items:

1. Fails to build in Mock.  Looks like it is due to a missing BR on GConf2-devel.
2. The Requires on gtk2 & dbus are unnecessary, since the devel packages sonames
will pull these in.
3. SOURCE should be a full URL.
4. You can probably pass the --disable-static flag to the configure macro, and
not even build the static libs since your just removing them anyhow.
5. You should probably use the gconf scriptlets from the wiki.
Comment 3 Jesse Keating 2006-05-26 16:45:43 EDT
 - Buildroot needs to follow guideline
 - BuildRequires: autconf automake 
 - Fails to build in mock:
checking for NOTIFICATION_DAEMON... configure: error: Package requirements (
        gtk+-2.0 >= 2.4.0,      glib-2.0 >= 2.4.0,      dbus-1 >= 0.36,        
dbus-glib-1 >= 0.36,    gconf-2.0,      libwnck-1.0 ) were not met:

No package 'libwnck-1.0' found.

Also, the manual Requires, is this because rpm require checking isn't getting it
Comment 4 John (J5) Palmieri 2006-06-05 16:21:45 EDT
Fixed with suggestions.

Not sure why Buildroot isn't just handled by RPM.

Spec URL:
Comment 5 Jesse Keating 2006-06-14 16:33:23 EDT
THis was built into rawhide.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.