Spec URL: http://amsn.hoentjen.eu/download/tkdnd.spec SRPM URL: http://amsn.hoentjen.eu/download/tkdnd-1.0a2-1.src.rpm Description: Tk extension that adds native drag & drop capabilities I currently have an rpmlint error: W: tkdnd unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/tkdnd/libtkdnd.so How can I fix this?
(In reply to comment #0) > Spec URL: http://amsn.hoentjen.eu/download/tkdnd.spec > SRPM URL: http://amsn.hoentjen.eu/download/tkdnd-1.0a2-1.src.rpm > Description: Tk extension that adds native drag & drop capabilities > > I currently have an rpmlint error: > W: tkdnd unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/tkdnd/libtkdnd.so The problem is caused by the .so file being installed without executable permissions. > How can I fix this? Use: make install INSTALL_DATA="install -p" instead of just: make install which uses a default for INSTALL_DATA of "/usr/bin/install -c -m 644" BuildReq tcl-devel isn't needed here because tk-devel depends on it by the way.
(In reply to comment #1) > > How can I fix this? > > Use: > make install INSTALL_DATA="install -p" > instead of just: > make install > which uses a default for INSTALL_DATA of "/usr/bin/install -c -m 644" > thanks, fixed > BuildReq tcl-devel isn't needed here because tk-devel depends on it by the way. > fixed, thanks for your quick comments Spec URL: http://amsn.hoentjen.eu/download/tkdnd.spec SRPM URL: http://amsn.hoentjen.eu/download/tkdnd-1.0a2-2.src.rpm
Doesn't build on x86_64. It looks like this will need the same tcl.m4 fix that was used for tcltls (adding $libdir to the path where tclConfig.sh is found)
The --libdir argument to configure is necessary due to a poorly written mkIndex.tcl script. In addition, upstream seems to have decided to include a prebuilt dll file in the source tarball. Naughty upstream! If you remove the lib/tkdnd/*.dll in %prep and use the sed script below in %build, then you don't need to pass --libdir in %configure. This addresses the problem directly instead of indirectly through --libdir. %{__sed} -i -e 's#libtkdnd.dll ##' \ -e "s#^set libdir.*#set libdir $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}#" \ mkIndex.tcl.in You should also pass DESTDIR to make install: make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT INSTALL_DATA="install -p"
Spec URL: http://amsn.hoentjen.eu/download/tkdnd.spec SRPM URL: http://amsn.hoentjen.eu/download/tkdnd-1.0a2-3.src.rpm This has all Wart's fixes. I guess 64bit works now, unfortunatly I can't test that.
(In reply to comment #5) > I guess 64bit works now, unfortunatly I can't test that. Almost. I overlooked the fact that tcl.m4 needs to be modified to look in the extra directories for tkConfig.sh, too. Builds in mock look good. I'll start a formal review shortly.
Spec URL: http://amsn.hoentjen.eu/download/tkdnd.spec SRPM URL: http://amsn.hoentjen.eu/download/tkdnd-1.0a2-4.src.rpm I guess this should fix the 64bit issue. Soon I will have enough money for my own 64bit box :P
Almost there... It seems that there is a hardcoded "../lib/" path in the Makefile that still breaks on x86_64 during make install. Since this package only really installs 3 files, it's probably easier to just drop all of these install-file sed commands and install everything by hand. Here's what I did in %install to do this: %install cd unix rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_libdir}/%{name}-%{version} install -p -m 0755 ../lib/tkdnd/*.so $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_libdir}/%{name}-%{version} install -p -m 0644 ../lib/tkdnd/*.tcl $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_libdir}/%{name}-%{version} Note that I added %{version} to the installed directory name, just in case you ever want to have multiple versions installed at the same time. The %files section will have to be updated accordingly. You can also drop the sed command on mkIndex.tcl, since it won't be needed anymore.
(In reply to comment #8) Done. Spec URL: http://amsn.hoentjen.eu/download/tkdnd.spec SRPM URL: http://amsn.hoentjen.eu/download/tkdnd-1.0a2-5.src.rpm about %{version}: It might be a good idea since after 4 years of no updates there is work being done on tkdnd 2 Thanks again for the help
Looks good! Only two (nitpicking) minor issues: MUST ==== * Source matches upstream: 43c91da595aade4978e2e5e820ab0fc9 tkdnd-1.0a2.tar.gz * rpmlint output clean * Spec file legible and in Am. English * No excessive BuildRequires: * BSD license ok, license file included * No .desktop file needed * No -devel subpackage needed * No need for -docs subpackage * No duplicate %files * Permissions look ok MUSTFIX ======= * Remove the extra directory in %doc by adding a wildcard: %doc doc/* * Move the "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" to the very first line in %install SHOULD ====== * You need BuildRequires: xorg-x11-devel if you plan to build on FC4. You can do this by either forking the spec files in CVS, or adding the following to the current spec file: %if "%fedora" <= "4" BuildRequires: xorg-x11-devel %else BuildRequires: libXext-devel %endif * An alpha release of version 2.0 is available. Have you considered upgrading, or is the alpha version not stable enough? * Notify upstream about the 64-bit build issues and send them the patch.
(In reply to comment #10) > Looks good! Only two (nitpicking) minor issues: > > MUSTFIX > ======= > * Remove the extra directory in %doc by adding a wildcard: > %doc doc/* Yes I saw this myself a while ago but forgot to fix it, fixed now. > > * Move the "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" to the very first line in %install whoops, fixed > > SHOULD > ====== > * You need BuildRequires: xorg-x11-devel if you plan to build on FC4. You > can do this by either forking the spec files in CVS, or adding the following > to the current spec file: > %if "%fedora" <= "4" > BuildRequires: xorg-x11-devel > %else > BuildRequires: libXext-devel > %endif Should I build on FC4? If yes, I think I will go for a fork. > > * An alpha release of version 2.0 is available. Have you considered upgrading, > or is the alpha version not stable enough? I considered, but the alpha version is drop only, no drag yet. > > * Notify upstream about the 64-bit build issues and send them the patch. > I think this makes more sence for 2.0 only since i don't think they will release another 1.x. I will check if 2.0 builds ok for 64-bit after I get my new computer (tomorrow). Spec URL: http://amsn.hoentjen.eu/download/tkdnd.spec SRPM URL: http://amsn.hoentjen.eu/download/tkdnd-1.0a2-6.src.rpm
> > SHOULD > > ====== > > * You need BuildRequires: xorg-x11-devel if you plan to build on FC4. You > > can do this by either forking the spec files in CVS, or adding the following > > to the current spec file: > > %if "%fedora" <= "4" > > BuildRequires: xorg-x11-devel > > %else > > BuildRequires: libXext-devel > > %endif > > Should I build on FC4? If yes, I think I will go for a fork. It's up to you either way. There's no requirement for you to build on FC4, and you can always decide to do it later if you wish. > > * An alpha release of version 2.0 is available. Have you considered upgrading, > > or is the alpha version not stable enough? > > I considered, but the alpha version is drop only, no drag yet. Ok. > > * Notify upstream about the 64-bit build issues and send them the patch. > > > I think this makes more sence for 2.0 only since i don't think they will release > another 1.x. I will check if 2.0 builds ok for 64-bit after I get my new > computer (tomorrow). That's understandable. If you want to support both 1.0 and 2.0 being installed simultaneously then you'll probably want to name the new package "tkdnd2", otherwise yum will only let you have one installed at a time. > Spec URL: http://amsn.hoentjen.eu/download/tkdnd.spec > SRPM URL: http://amsn.hoentjen.eu/download/tkdnd-1.0a2-6.src.rpm All MUSTFIX items have been fixed. APPROVED
Re-closing due to recent Bugzilla data loss.