Spec URL: http://wilsonet.com/packages/beryl/emerald.spec SRPM URL: http://wilsonet.com/packages/beryl/emerald-0.1.0-1.fc6.src.rpm Description: -- Emerald is themeable window decorator and compositing manager for Beryl. Launch Theme Manager from beryl-manager to change themes. -- NOTE: This package depends on beryl-core, under review here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209259.
Just uploaded -2 build to remedy duplicate menu entries. http://wilsonet.com/packages/beryl/emerald-0.1.0-2.fc6.src.rpm
new emerald installs .desktop menu entries twice /usr/share/applications/emerald-theme-manager.desktop /usr/share/applications/fedora-emerald-theme-manager.desktop
Fixed in -3. Stupid oversight and lack of checking the resulting builds on my part. :) http://wilsonet.com/packages/beryl/emerald-0.1.0-3.fc6.src.rpm
Just pushed out a 0.1.1-1 build. http://wilsonet.com/packages/beryl/emerald-0.1.1-1.fc6.src.rpm
It builds on FC5 with this patch : http://gauret.free.fr/fichiers/rpms/fedora/xgl/beryl-manager-0.1.1-intltool.patch (same stuff as beryl-manager) I also needed to add this line after intltoolize in prep: sed -i -e "/^POTFILES/d" po/Makefile.in.in It looks like this old version of intltool does not insert the content of the POTFILES file, so there is an annoying leftover backslash which prevents the CATALOGS from being built. I'm not sure it's worth working too hard to have beryl/emerald on FC5 now that FC6 is out.
I think I'm leaning toward agreeing that working on these for FC5 isn't the best use of time w/FC6 already out. Once all the packages are accepted into Fedora Extras, perhaps revisit getting them together for FC5 as well. Latest build, using new upstream tarballs: http://wilsonet.com/packages/beryl/emerald-0.1.2-2.fc6.src.rpm
MUST items: !* rpmlint output: E: emerald binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/emerald/engines/ libpixmap.so ['/usr/lib64'] E: emerald binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/emerald/engines/ libtruglass.so ['/usr/lib64'] E: emerald binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/emerald/engines/ libvrunner.so ['/usr/lib64'] E: emerald binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/emerald/engines/ liboxygen.so ['/usr/lib64'] E: emerald binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/emerald/engines/ liblegacy.so ['/usr/lib64'] E: emerald binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/emerald/engines/ libzootreeves.so ['/usr/lib64'] E: emerald binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/emerald-theme-manager ['/usr/ lib64'] E: emerald binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/emerald ['/usr/lib64'] W: emerald-devel no-documentation * package is named well * spec file name is good * package meets Packaging Guidelines * package is licensed with a GPL open-source compatible license * License field in spec file matches actual license * license file is included in %doc * md5sums are matching (c273fe82c7e3b2867f05073f3b012708) * package successfully compiles on x86_64 * BuildRequires listed well (mock builds well) * spec file handles locales properly * proper %post and %postun sections * not relocatable * package owns directories well * no duplicates in %files * every %files section includes %defattr * proper %clean section * macros used well * -devel subpackage created good * .desktop file present and looks good THINGS to do: * you have to fix rpath issue by adding following lines to %prep section: sed -i 's|^hardcode_libdir_flag_spec=.*|hardcode_libdir_flag_spec=""|g' libtool sed -i 's|^runpath_var=LD_RUN_PATH|runpath_var=DIE_RPATH_DIE|g' libtool
Blah, I meant to run rpmlint over all the packages to catch stuff like this... The suggested fix doesn't work on this package, but adding this to %prep does: perl -pi -e 's|hardcode_into_libs=.*|hardcode_into_libs=no|g' configure perl -pi -e 's|hardcode_libdir_flag_spec=.*|hardcode_libdir_flag_spec=""|g' configure perl -pi -e 's|runpath_var=LD_RUN_PATH|runpath_var=DIE_RPATH_DIE|g' configure New build has that included, rpmlint is (almost) silent: http://wilsonet.com/packages/beryl/emerald-0.1.2-3.fc6.src.rpm $ rpmlint /build/RPMS/x86_64/emerald-*0.1.2-3* W: emerald-devel no-documentation
(In reply to comment #8) > Blah, I meant to run rpmlint over all the packages to catch stuff like this... > The suggested fix doesn't work on this package, but adding this to %prep does: Hmm... Odd... I tried the solution I suggested and it did work for me. But your solution works too so nothing stands in the way to approve the package. APPROVED
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: emerald New Branches: el6 Owners: leigh123linux
Git done (by process-git-requests).