Bug 455585 - Review Request: packagekit-qt - QT bindings for packagekit
Review Request: packagekit-qt - QT bindings for packagekit
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
rawhide
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Rex Dieter
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
:
Depends On:
Blocks: 455700
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2008-07-16 09:22 EDT by Steven M. Parrish
Modified: 2009-01-09 09:05 EST (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2009-01-09 09:05:36 EST
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
rdieter: fedora‑review+
kevin: fedora‑cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Steven M. Parrish 2008-07-16 09:22:15 EDT
SPEC & SRPM are here http://tuxbrewr.fedorapeople.org/kpackagekit/
Description: QT bindings needed for kpackagekit

Build logs  http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=718807

Requires Qt4.4 so currently only builds for rawhide.  Will be included in F9 when KDE4.1 is released
Comment 1 Rex Dieter 2008-07-16 09:28:44 EDT
Quick comments:

1. Is BR: kdelibs-devel really needed here?  If so, use kdelibs4-devel instead.
2. Same for qt, use BR: qt4-devel >- 4.4
3. Preferable to use %{cmake} macro like:
%{cmake} .
instead of manually doing:
cmake . -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=/usr/
Comment 2 Rex Dieter 2008-07-16 09:34:25 EDT
and
4.  add %changelog
Comment 3 Steven M. Parrish 2008-07-16 10:05:09 EDT
Done 

New build logs  http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=719895
Comment 4 Kevin Kofler 2008-07-18 12:14:06 EDT
Linking packagekit-qt to dbus-1 directly (and doing the pkg-config check for 
it) should not be necessary, QT_QTDBUS_LIBRARY should be enough.
Comment 5 Steven M. Parrish 2008-07-18 16:39:58 EDT
Fixed the dbus linking issue mentioned in comment #4.  New SPEC and SRPM in ths
usual spot
Comment 6 Rex Dieter 2008-07-22 09:56:31 EDT
I'll see about finishing this up.
Comment 7 Rex Dieter 2008-07-22 09:59:21 EDT
For posterity, please make sure to increment Release and make changelog 
entries for each pkg modification esp for those made during review.  I mention 
this only because I didn't see that for the mods made in comment #3 and 
comment #5
Comment 8 Rex Dieter 2008-07-22 10:04:13 EDT
5.  Imo, there's a needless -libs subpkg here.  I'd recommend getting rid of 
it, put the -libs files into the main (packagekit-qt) pkg.

6.  -devel should
Requires: cmake
for ownership of %{_datadir}/cmake

just noticed, both packagekit-qt and kpackagekit reviews are coming from the 
same tarball.  Why did you submit these separately?
Comment 9 Steven M. Parrish 2008-07-22 15:39:41 EDT
As discussed looks like we have to go with 2 seperate packages. We can start
here since kpackagekit requires this package.  SPEC and SRPM in the normal spot.
 Build logs here  http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=732307
Comment 10 Rex Dieter 2008-07-22 15:47:46 EDT
You missed item 5.

7. Not that it matters much, but the main pkg should be
Group: System Environment/Libraries
and -devel
Group: Development/Libraries

license confirmed GPLv2+ (though there's what looks to be some truncation or 
typos in the source headers in places)

source confirmed:
5dd2cffe88091c495f93ffd256faa68e  84745-kpackagekit-0.1-b3.tar.bz2

itesm 5,7 are mostly cosmetic, and I'll trust will be addressed before 
building.  APPROVED.
Comment 11 Steven M. Parrish 2008-07-22 16:01:48 EDT
New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: packagekit-qt
Short Description: Qt interface for PackageKit.
Owners: tuxbrewr
Branches: F9
InitialCC: rdieter, kkofler
Cvsextras Commits: yes
Comment 12 Kevin Fenzi 2008-07-22 23:08:58 EDT
cvs done.
Comment 13 Ville Skyttä 2008-09-10 17:31:54 EDT
Hm, there's a few problems/oddities with the latest in CVS (devel):

Only a -devel binary package is produced.  It contains the (versioned) shared object which I suppose would be enough at runtime non-devel use.  If so, the versioned *.so.* should be moved to the main, non-devel package and -devel made dependent on it.  Oh, I see Rex already mentioned these (see comments 8 and 10); they remain unaddressed though.

There are no %post/%postun /sbin/ldconfig calls even though a shared object is installed into system lib dirs - is that intentional?

-devel appears to be lacking some dependencies, see #includes in *.h.  At least some qt headers are needed (perhaps (not verified) Requires: qt4-devel?)
Comment 14 Steven M. Parrish 2009-01-09 09:05:36 EST
Package is dead and has been EOL'd

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