Bug 226053 - Merge Review: libusb
Merge Review: libusb
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Ralf Corsepius
Fedora Package Reviews List
Depends On:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2007-01-31 14:28 EST by Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
Modified: 2007-11-30 17:11 EST (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2007-11-28 23:52:25 EST
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
rc040203: fedora‑review+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it 2007-01-31 14:28:24 EST
Fedora Merge Review: libusb

Initial Owner: jnovy@redhat.com
Comment 1 Ralf Corsepius 2007-02-05 01:41:41 EST
* Doesn't build on FC6 due to some issues related to it's docs (docbook):
jade -t sgml -d ./website.dsl\#html ./manual.sgml
jade:./website.dsl:2:95:W: cannot generate system identifier for public text
"-//Norman Walsh//DOCUMENT DocBook HTML Stylesheet//EN"

* The spec contains all kind of odd auto*-related hacks.
AFAICS, all these are superfluous if 
"make DESTDIR="${RPM_OPT_FLAGS}" install"
was used.

* Package contains static libs.
Comment 2 Jindrich Novy 2007-02-06 04:50:06 EST
Seems to be caused by a missing openjade BuildRequires.
Comment 3 Jindrich Novy 2007-02-06 05:23:24 EST
Builds fine for me after adding the BR in the freshly created rawhide chroot
installed with minimal dependencies on i386.
Comment 4 Ralf Corsepius 2007-02-06 05:44:27 EST
You are still using this auto* hacks - why?

You should be able to condense all this into:

%configure --disable-static

make DESTDIR=${RPM_BUILD_ROOT} install
rm -f $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}/*.la
Comment 5 Jindrich Novy 2007-02-06 06:25:36 EST
Yeah, I can remove the autofoo stuff, but I'm not sure about removing the libusb
static library. libusb is low-level enough that someone would really wish to
link against libusb statically, so how about introducing libusb-static package
shipping static stuff? Simply removing the static libs completely now as you
propose is no a good way to follow.
Comment 6 Ralf Corsepius 2007-02-06 10:15:07 EST
(In reply to comment #5)
> I'm not sure about removing the libusb
> static library. 
I can't imagine any reason for needing the static libs, so I am highly in favor
of removing them. Nevertheless, introducing *-static would be a compromize, to
force those deps on static libs to become apparent and give those packages more
time to move to shared libs rsp. to provide a precendence for a case in which
static libs are required.
Comment 7 Jindrich Novy 2007-02-08 08:07:49 EST
Please check the latest libusb (7.fc7). I added the static subpackage there.
Comment 8 Ralf Corsepius 2007-02-16 09:18:26 EST
Sorry, on fc6, building still fails with the jade/docbook error reported in #1.

Did you try to build this package for fc6?
Comment 9 Jindrich Novy 2007-02-20 06:30:56 EST
Yes, I tried to build the rawhide libusb on FC6 and it failed in the
documentation generation phase because of some jade inconsistency. The question
is whether this is related to merge review as we focus on F7 here.
Comment 10 Ralf Corsepius 2007-02-20 06:39:12 EST
Sorry, I don't have a rawhide system installed. 
=> Somebody else will have to take over the review.

Comment 11 Jindrich Novy 2007-02-20 06:48:16 EST
Ralf, thanks for your comments and review. Maybe mock will help you here to do a
rawhide build if you are still interested.
Comment 12 Ralf Corsepius 2007-02-20 10:15:16 EST
Now, things are getting interesting ...

ATM, *-7.src.rpm doesn't fail in an fc6-mock, but it fails in a normal 
user environment ... <confused/>
Comment 13 Jindrich Novy 2007-02-20 10:21:53 EST
/me suspects some jade config clashes caused by updates
Comment 14 Ralf Corsepius 2007-02-21 11:54:46 EST
(In reply to comment #13)
> /me suspects some jade config clashes caused by updates
Probably, I found my sgml/xml catalogs were broken ;)

Package builds fine under FC6 and FC7 now, unfortunately between all these
"proposals", I've lost oversight on what the current way is to approve a package.

Comment 15 Jindrich Novy 2007-02-21 12:19:57 EST
Comment 16 Ralf Corsepius 2007-11-28 23:52:25 EST
Housekeeping, seems as if this PR should have been closed long time ago, but got
lost during the transition to flagged reviews.

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