Spec URL: http://www.mpip-mainz.mpg.de/~junghans/fedora/votca-csg.spec SRPM URL: http://www.mpip-mainz.mpg.de/~junghans/fedora/votca-csg-1.0.1-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: Versatile Object-oriented Toolkit for Coarse-graining Applications (VOTCA) is a package intended to reduce the amount of routine work when doing systematic coarse-graining of various systems. (For the Non-Experts: 'Coarse-graining' is a way to simplify simulations, think of it as replacing a whole molecule by a sphere.) votca-csg needs votca-tools a library with the basic tools. Spec URL: http://www.mpip-mainz.mpg.de/~junghans/fedora/votca-tools.spec SRPM URL: http://www.mpip-mainz.mpg.de/~junghans/fedora/votca-tools-1.0.1-1.fc14.src.rpm Thanks again to Jussi Lehtola for helping to create the initial spec files!
Requires: %{name}-libs in the main package which you have added must be dropped as an explicit lib require. The library dependency is automatically picked up by rpm. The -devel package must have it, though, since there is nothing in -devel that would pull in the libraries automatically.
(In reply to comment #1) > Requires: %{name}-libs > in the main package which you have added must be dropped as an explicit lib > require. The library dependency is automatically picked up by rpm. > > The -devel package must have it, though, since there is nothing in -devel that > would pull in the libraries automatically. Umm.. - currently (it seems) that if -devel package contains %_libdir/libfoo.so and -libs or main package has %_libdir/libfoo.so.X, rpmbuild adds the dependency libfoo.so.X to -devel subpackage. For example libX11-devel has R: libX11-xcb.so.1 and R: libX11.so.6, despite that libX11-devel contains only ldconfig symlink, header files, pkgconfig files, and man files. - And usually if libraries (%_libdir/libfoo.so.X*) are splitted out into -libs subpackage, the main package has "R: -libs = %version-%release" https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package (In this case the "base" package is -libs). e.g. file has "R: file-libs = %version-%release", many others do so
(In reply to comment #1) > Requires: %{name}-libs > in the main package which you have added must be dropped as an explicit lib > require. The library dependency is automatically picked up by rpm. I removed it.
(In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #1) > > Requires: %{name}-libs > > in the main package which you have added must be dropped as an explicit lib > > require. The library dependency is automatically picked up by rpm. > I removed it. Please readd.
(In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #3) > > (In reply to comment #1) > > > Requires: %{name}-libs > > > in the main package which you have added must be dropped as an explicit lib > > > require. The library dependency is automatically picked up by rpm. > > I removed it. > > Please readd. No problem, I am just not very familiar with the rpm build system.
Christoph: you'll need to make a review request for votca-tools, as well. You're not a Fedora packager yet, right? (In reply to comment #2) > Umm.. > - currently (it seems) that if -devel package contains %_libdir/libfoo.so > and -libs or main package has %_libdir/libfoo.so.X, rpmbuild adds > the dependency libfoo.so.X to -devel subpackage. > For example libX11-devel has R: libX11-xcb.so.1 and R: libX11.so.6, > despite that libX11-devel contains only ldconfig symlink, header files, > pkgconfig files, and man files. I stand corrected. rpmlint of course complains if there is no explicit require in -devel. And the explicit require is required in the package review guidelines. > - And usually if libraries (%_libdir/libfoo.so.X*) are splitted out > into -libs subpackage, the main package has "R: -libs = %version-%release" > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package > (In this case the "base" package is -libs). > e.g. file has "R: file-libs = %version-%release", many others do so Hmm, Mamoru seems to have a point here. Although, http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Explicit_Requires clearly states: "Packages must not contain explicit Requires on libraries except when absolutely necessary."
(In reply to comment #6) > Christoph: you'll need to make a review request for votca-tools, as well. The request can be found under bug #660061 > You're not a Fedora packager yet, right? Yes, but I would like to stay on the upstream side and get involved if something needs to be added to the official votca release. > > - And usually if libraries (%_libdir/libfoo.so.X*) are splitted out > > into -libs subpackage, the main package has "R: -libs = %version-%release" > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package > > (In this case the "base" package is -libs). > > e.g. file has "R: file-libs = %version-%release", many others do so > Hmm, Mamoru seems to have a point here. Although, > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Explicit_Requires > clearly states: > "Packages must not contain explicit Requires on libraries except when > absolutely necessary." This seems correct to me due to the fact that dynamically linked binaries will need the shared library.
(In reply to comment #7) > > You're not a Fedora packager yet, right? > Yes, but I would like to stay on the upstream side and get involved if > something needs to be added to the official votca release. Hmm, we're *downstream* in Fedora. If you want to become a Fedora packager, you'll need to get a sponsor. I am willing to sponsor you if you show me your knowing of the Fedora guidelines, most importantly http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines Additionally to the Packaging Guidelines, there are a bunch of language / application specific guidelines that are linked to in the Packaging Guidelines. Here are some tricks of the trade: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_tricks http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues Normally I sponsor people who have made at least two submissions and performed a couple of informal reviews of packages of other people. However, as in this case your submissions are two spec files written by other people (that is, myself), I'll require that you generate two packages of your own. Other sponsors may have different criteria. I won't perform the official review of votca-tools or votca-csg, since I've written both spec files originally. As a general guideline: please review only packages *not* marked with FE-NEEDSPONSOR. Your sponsor will have to do the full formal review after you to check that you have got everything correctly. Once you have been sponsored you will be able to do formal reviews of your own. > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Explicit_Requires > > clearly states: > > "Packages must not contain explicit Requires on libraries except when > > absolutely necessary." > This seems correct to me due to the fact that dynamically linked binaries will > need the shared library. The thing is that normally it's not necessary for dynamically linked binaries, as RPM will add dependencies on the relevant library (e.g. libgmx_d.so.6, or libvotca_tools.so.0).
(In reply to comment #8) > If you want to become a Fedora packager, you'll need to get a sponsor. Do I have to? I am already involved in Gentoo Linux. I would prefer leaving the maintenance of the spec files to you fedora guys. If there are any problems in the VOTCA build system I can incorporate the changes into official release of the VOTCA.
And I am sorry to refuse to become a Fedora packager, I just like gentoo too much to change ;-)
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 661154 ***