Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~npmccallum/nux/nux.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~npmccallum/nux/nux-0.9.38-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: An OpenGL toolkit This is a required dependency for unity.
$ rpmlint nux*.rpm nux-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. This warning can be ignored because nux has docs and nux-devel depends on nux.
I actually have a basically identical build sitting here waiting on an upstream bug report I filed - https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/706703 - but never mind. Review: as I'd expected, this fails to build for F15 or F16 due to the upstream bug mentioned. I'd recommend you pull the patch from that bug report into the package. Can you please add it and submit a modified .spec / .srpm for review? Thanks.
Updated package : SPEC : http://hicham.fedorapeople.org/unity-packaging/00-nux/nux.spec SRPM : http://hicham.fedorapeople.org/unity-packaging/00-nux/nux-0.9.48-1.fc15.src.rpm Description : Nux is a graphical user interface toolkit for applications that mixes OpenGL hardware acceleration with high quality visual rendering.
The revised package builds on F15, good. Some problems in rpmlint: [adamw@adam SRPMS]$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-15-x86_64/result/*.rpm nux.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libnux-0.9.so.0.944.4 ['/usr/lib64'] nux.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libnux-image-0.9.so.0.944.4 ['/usr/lib64'] nux.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libnux-graphics-0.9.so.0.944.4 ['/usr/lib64'] nux-devel-docs.x86_64: E: devel-dependency nux-devel nux-devel-docs.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/nux/gputests/framebufferobject.cpp nux-devel-docs.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/nux/gputests/texture_data.cpp nux-devel-docs.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/nux/gputests/texture_copy_blur.cpp nux-devel-docs.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/nux/gputests/texture_blur.cpp nux-devel-docs.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/nux/gputests/arb_programs_limits.cpp nux-devel-docs.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/nux/gputests/texture_power_of_2.cpp 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 6 warnings. please fix at least the rpath stuff, the others may be ignored if the source really is part of the docs. The license on the tests and examples is GPLv3, not LGPL; so set a License field on the devel-docs package. Aside from the above, this looks good. -- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers
Latest release is now 1.16.0.
I updated the package anyway: Spec: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/nux/nux.spec Srpm: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/nux/nux-1.16.0-1.fc16.src.rpm Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3539920
i'll take a look at that soon if I get to it. maybe the unity dream isn't dead yet...heh -- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers
Yeah. I fixed the rpath warnings and devel-docs license field in: Spec: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/nux/nux.spec Srpm: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/nux/nux-1.16.0-2.fc16.src.rpm
(In reply to comment #7) > i'll take a look at that soon if I get to it. maybe the unity dream isn't dead > yet...heh > > > > -- > Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers Somebody needs to take compiz then, since it is now orphaned.
Any last time I checked, nux was bundling tinyxml, this needs to be fixed too.
Hicham, if you want to continue the review that fine too. :) I just posted an update to try to get things moving again. > Somebody needs to take compiz then, since it is now orphaned. Hm yeah - personally I was wanting to get unity-2d working. :) (I can wait for 3D desktops until I have a 3D monitor and apps ;o) But yes, sigh, unity BRs compiz-devel... Anyone interested in doing a Unity feature for F17?
when I started out trying to get unity going I wasn't going to do it as a feature, as I figured going through the feature process would only attract a bunch of entirely unnecessary a) controversy and b) press attention. it would inevitably get mangled as 'Red Hat Hedging Bets With Unity Support' or some such silliness by certain parts of the press. -- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers
(In reply to comment #11) > Hicham, if you want to continue the review that fine too. :) > I just posted an update to try to get things moving again. > I used unity on Fedora 15 for about a month, what pissed me off is that trivial patches took ages to get merged upstream ( some are still rotting ).
I'm no longer interested in this. Doubt anyone else is either, but I'll leave it to Nat to close the bug.
This appears to have stalled out. I'm going to close this to get it off the tracker [0], but feel free to re-open it if/when you're able to pick it back up. [0]: https://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/