Spec URL: http://math.ifi.unizh.ch/fedora/spec/stklos.spec SRPM URL: http://math.ifi.unizh.ch/fedora/5/i386/SRPMS.gemi/stklos-0.72-2.src.rpm Description: STklos is a fast Scheme bytecode interpreter trying to conform to R5RS. It is the successor of STk (a Scheme interpreter able to access the Tk toolkit). NB: I don't think it is worth the effort the separate the header files from the main package.
I'm getting a 404 for the src.rpm Also, it doesn't matter is you don't consider the effort as being worthwhile, if it's supposed to be in a devel package, it goes in a devel package. There are a couple of exceptions to this (such as if the application provides templates [such as with anjuta]), but files need to be in their correct packages.
I get no error, download seems to work correctly... The header files are needed to compile native extensions. The stklos-config is also related to this and normally belongs to the -devel package. However stklos-config is needed by main package as well, so it must go to the main package. However stklos-config -c generates the command "gcc -fpic -I/usr/include/stklos" which obviously is not of much use without the header files. Therefore I think it is better to leave the header files in the main package. After all this is a programming system.
Blip at this end, file is okay! Okay, I can't get it to build as it stands as I get cannot find -lgnomecanvaspixbuf, so you'll need to include that in your BRs
(In reply to comment #3) > Okay, I can't get it to build as it stands as I get cannot find > -lgnomecanvaspixbuf, so you'll need to include that in your BRs /usr/lib/libgnomecanvaspixbuf.so is provided by gdk-pixbuf-devel which is already in the BR. Do you compile on devel? I downloaded the rpm for devel and checked that it contains the file, which it does. Maybe there is problem with mock setup?
(In reply to comment #4) > /usr/lib/libgnomecanvaspixbuf.so is provided by gdk-pixbuf-devel which is > already in the BR. Do you compile on devel? I downloaded the rpm for devel and > checked that it contains the file, which it does. I was mistaken. It was not the devel version I downloaded, but the FC5 version. The devel version is apparently incomplete since it does NOT contain /usr/lib/libgnomecanvaspixbuf.so. I will investigate.
I disabled gnome1 support for now: http://math.ifi.unizh.ch/fedora/5/i386/SRPMS.gemi/stklos-0.72-3.src.rpm
rpmlint warnings SRPM : clean RPM : you have multiple files in the main rpm which should be in the -devel package DEBUGINFO : clean You need to create a -devel package for this package.
ping! Anything happening on this?
There is a new release: http://math.ifi.unizh.ch/fedora/6/i386/SRPMS.gemi/stklos-0.80-1.fc6.src.rpm However, I think we disagree about packaging the .h files. I don't want to separate them from the main package, since this would break installing extensions that need to be compiled. If we don't come to an agreement, we probably have to discuss this on the fedora-extras list.
Clean in mock and rpmlint as for the .h file. They need to be in a devel file. If another package needs them to build, drag in the devel package and not the main one. Feel free to discuss it on the extras list, but I have a feeling it's probably not worth it for adding in the devel package.
(In reply to comment #10) > Clean in mock and rpmlint Not clean outside of mock: # rpmbuild -ba stklos.spec ... gcc -shared -o gtklos.so gtk-glue.o gtk-canvas.o gtk-cont.o gtk-editable.o gtk-image.o gtk-label.o gtk-misc.o gtk-list.o gtk-signal.o gtk-event.o gtk-menu.o \ -rdynamic -L/usr/lib -lgdk_pixbuf -lgtk -lgdk -lgmodule -lglib -ldl -lXi -lXext -lX11 -lm -lgnomecanvaspixbuf /usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lgnomecanvaspixbuf > as for the .h file. They need to be in a devel file. If another package needs > them to build, drag in the devel package and not the main one. > > Feel free to discuss it on the extras list, but I have a feeling it's probably > not worth it for adding in the devel package. Moving them into a *-devel package is a MUST.
It came up completely clean on my buildsys under mock and rpmlint. However, as there is a sticking point over the need for a devel package, that can get sorted when the subpackage appears.
(In reply to comment #12) > It came up completely clean on my buildsys under mock and rpmlint. Note what I wrote: "Not clean outside of mock:" I.e. * this package doesn't rebuild in a normal user-environment * this package doesn't produce deterministic builds. Probably a missing BuildRequires/BuildConflicts and/or missing --enable/disable something somewhere. MUSTFIX.
Is the upstream developer planning to support GTK2 soon? This looks really interesting.
(In reply to comment #14) > Is the upstream developer planning to support GTK2 soon? This looks really > interesting. It seems that the author considers it, but apparently is low priority.
The build scripts are not 64-bit clean - on my 64-bit machine it was using /usr/lib instead of /usr/lib64, despite the --libdir flag passed in %configure. Some build-script patching might be required.
This should fix the 64-bit libdir: http://math.ifi.unizh.ch/fedora/6/i386/SRPMS.gemi/stklos-0.81-1.fc6.src.rpm
Redundant BuildRequires: gtk+-devel (required by gdk-pixbuf-devel). Is it really worth to enable ldap support? extensions/README says: ** ldap This is a proof of concept module. Don't take it as a finished extension. This is a module that I have written because I need to hack a rather large LDAP base in our school. It does what I need and very little more. If you want to improve it to make something more useful, I would be glad to add your contribution. Builds fine out of mock.
gdk-pixbuf-devel in FC6 extras no longer depends on gtk+-devel, so the BR is not redundant. What's the decision regarding -devel? IMHO it'll be nice to just make stklos Provides: stklos-devel for now. Especially if third-party modules can be compiled against the headers.
Here is the new version, with "Provides: stklos-devel": http://math.ifi.unizh.ch/fedora/6/i386/SRPMS.gemi/stklos-0.82-1.src.rpm
Created attachment 146082 [details] Amended spec file
You MUST have the devel file for this package. Using the spec from #21, rpmlint is clean and it builds fine inside of mock
Your spec file doesn't work since some executables in the main package depend on stklos-config. That is one reason why I am opposed to the split.
You still need to split the package
Hello! Is this review still progressing?
Build of 0.96 in koji for Fedora 8 fails at the end with a build ID issue: make[2]: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/stklos-0.96' make[1]: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/stklos-0.96' + rm -fr '/var/tmp/stklos-0.96-1.fc8-root-kojibuilder/usr/share/stklos/%{_version}/demos' + find /var/tmp/stklos-0.96-1.fc8-root-kojibuilder/usr/share/stklos -name '*.ostk' + xargs chmod 0755 + find examples doc -name 'Makefile*' + xargs rm -f + rm -f /var/tmp/stklos-0.96-1.fc8-root-kojibuilder/usr/share/info/dir + /usr/lib/rpm/find-debuginfo.sh /builddir/build/BUILD/stklos-0.96 extracting debug info from /var/tmp/stklos-0.96-1.fc8-root-kojibuilder/usr/lib64/stklos/0.96/gtklos.so extracting debug info from /var/tmp/stklos-0.96-1.fc8-root-kojibuilder/usr/lib64/stklos/0.96/ldap.so *** ERROR: No build ID note found in /var/tmp/stklos-0.96-1.fc8-root-kojibuilder/usr/lib64/stklos/0.96/ldap.so error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.52535 (%install) RPM build errors: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.52535 (%install)
It's been another two months since the previous ping and very nearly a year since the last comment from the submitter. Closing.