Spec URL: http://ivazquez.fedorapeople.org/packages/xmlroff/xmlroff.spec SRPM URL: http://ivazquez.fedorapeople.org/packages/xmlroff/xmlroff-0.5.2-1.fc7.src.rpm Description: xmlroff is a fast, free, high-quality, multi-platform XSL formatter that aims to excel at DocBook formatting and that integrates easily with other programs and with scripting languages.
Please check your packages by rpmlint before submitting to review request. For 0.5.2-1: * Dependency between subpackags - Please check the dependency between subpackages of this srpm - xmlroff should have "libfo = %{version}-%{release}" - libfo-devel should have "libfo = %{version}-%{release}". * Requires - Would you explain why libfo-devel should require libxslt-devel? * ldconfig - Please call ldconfig for libraries under %_libdir on scriptlets. * Documents - The dependency order is that xmlroff requires libfo. So if only libfo is installed, no documents (COPYING, AUTHORS and so on) are installed, which is not proper. * Directory ownership - Please check the owner of %_datadir/xml . On my system, -------------------------------------------------------- $ rpm -qf /usr/share/xml xml-common-0.6.3-21.fc8 libglade2-2.6.2-3.fc8 -------------------------------------------------------- However xmlroff requires neither of these packages. * pkgconfig .pc file - should be installed in -devel package. - And the package containing .pc file must have "Requires: pkgconfig". * Timestamp - To keep timestamps, please use ------------------------------------------------------- make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT INSTALL="install -p" ------------------------------------------------------- This method usually works for recent Makefiles.
ping?
(In reply to comment #1) > * Requires > - Would you explain why libfo-devel should require > libxslt-devel? From libfo-0.5.pc: > Requires: glib-2.0 gobject-2.0 gmodule-2.0 libxslt gdk-pixbuf-2.0 http://ivazquez.fedorapeople.org/packages/xmlroff/xmlroff.spec http://ivazquez.fedorapeople.org/packages/xmlroff/xmlroff-0.5.2-2.src.rpm
(In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #1) > > * Requires > > - Would you explain why libfo-devel should require > > libxslt-devel? > > From libfo-0.5.pc: > > > Requires: glib-2.0 gobject-2.0 gmodule-2.0 libxslt gdk-pixbuf-2.0 So would you check if libxslt-devel is _actually_ needed? From header files it seems this "libxslt" should be "libxml-2.0" (i.e. Requires: not libxslt-devel but libxml2-devel).
(In reply to comment #4) > So would you check if libxslt-devel is _actually_ needed? > From header files it seems this "libxslt" should be "libxml-2.0" > (i.e. Requires: not libxslt-devel but libxml2-devel). From libfo/fo-xslt-transformer.c: > #include <libxslt/xslt.h> > #include <libxslt/xsltInternals.h> > #include <libxslt/transform.h>
(In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > So would you check if libxslt-devel is _actually_ needed? > > From header files it seems this "libxslt" should be "libxml-2.0" > > (i.e. Requires: not libxslt-devel but libxml2-devel). > > From libfo/fo-xslt-transformer.c: > > > #include <libxslt/xslt.h> > > #include <libxslt/xsltInternals.h> > > #include <libxslt/transform.h> It is for BuildRequires, not for Requires for -devel package.
(In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #5) > > (In reply to comment #4) > > > So would you check if libxslt-devel is _actually_ needed? > > > From header files it seems this "libxslt" should be "libxml-2.0" > > > (i.e. Requires: not libxslt-devel but libxml2-devel). > > > > From libfo/fo-xslt-transformer.c: > > > > > #include <libxslt/xslt.h> > > > #include <libxslt/xsltInternals.h> > > > #include <libxslt/transform.h> > > It is for BuildRequires, not for Requires for -devel package. No, another package BuildRequires libfo-devel, which then in turn Requires libxslt-devel so that the package can build.
(In reply to comment #7) > (In reply to comment #6) > > (In reply to comment #5) > > > (In reply to comment #4) > > > > So would you check if libxslt-devel is _actually_ needed? > > > > From header files it seems this "libxslt" should be "libxml-2.0" > > > > (i.e. Requires: not libxslt-devel but libxml2-devel). > > > > > > From : > > > > > > > #include <libxslt/xslt.h> > > > > #include <libxslt/xsltInternals.h> > > > > #include <libxslt/transform.h> > > > > It is for BuildRequires, not for Requires for -devel package. > > No, another package BuildRequires libfo-devel, which then in turn Requires > libxslt-devel so that the package can build. in turn Requires s|libxslt-devel|libxml2-devel| All symbols which can be used from external libraries/binaries are written in installed header files.
I see what you did there... http://ivazquez.fedorapeople.org/packages/xmlroff/xmlroff.spec http://ivazquez.fedorapeople.org/packages/xmlroff/xmlroff-0.5.2-3.src.rpm
For 0.5.2-3: * Dependency for libfo-devel: - Well, however libfo-devel needs libxml2-devel, which cannot be removed. I came to think that because to require libxslt-devel also require libxml2-devel and extra dependency for libxslt-devel is small, we can leave libxslt-devel dependency So would you please remove xmlroff-0.5.2-nolibxslt.patch and have libfo-devel require libxslt-devel again? as you did before? Sorry...
I'll do you one better. http://ivazquez.fedorapeople.org/packages/xmlroff/xmlroff.spec http://ivazquez.fedorapeople.org/packages/xmlroff/xmlroff-0.5.2-4.src.rpm
Okay. ------------------------------------------------------------------ This package (xmlroff) is APPROVED by me ------------------------------------------------------------------
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: xmlroff Short Description: A XSL-FO processor Owners: ivazquez Branches: F-7 F-8 Cvsextras Commits: yes
cvs done.
Please close this bug when rebuild and request on bodhi are done.
Built on F-7, F-8, and rawhide, and pushed.