Spec URL: http://hubbitus.info/rpm/Fedora17/angelscript/angelscript.spec SRPM URL: http://hubbitus.info/rpm/Fedora17/angelscript/angelscript-2.22.1-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: The AngelScript library is a software library for easy integration of external scripting to applications, with built-in compiler and virtual machine. The scripting language is easily extendable to incorporate application specific datatypes and functions. It is designed with C++ in mind, as such it shares many features with C++, for example syntax and data types. Fedora Account System Username: hubbitus
Hm, the spec looks like mine from http://fedora.danny.cz/danny/development/SRPMS/repoview/angelscript.html :-) If the app you are packaging needs an older version of angelscript I'd prefer to create 2 packages: angelscript that will follow the latest versions and angelscript2221 as a compat package with the required version. Otherwise the general requirement for packaging the latest version can't be fullfiled.
Sadly angelscript is another example where API/ABI stability in a library is not maintained in any way :-(
Created attachment 651663 [details] angelscript addons vs ror addons I think an attempt should be made to port RigsOfRods to the latest angelscript. I've checked the changes they made to the add-ons coming from angelscript and the diffs are minimal, so they should be portable to angelscript 2.25
(In reply to comment #1) > Hm, the spec looks like mine from > http://fedora.danny.cz/danny/development/SRPMS/repoview/angelscript.html :-) Absolutely! You may find it copyright in sole changelog entry of my spec file. So if you have Fedora account in packager group and wish (co)maintain this packet - welcome. I had packaged it as dependency to rigsofrods package. And with hope fix come in upstream bug to interoperability with new version. Also thank you for the patch. I'll look it. May be you are willing submit it upstream? Are you author them?
> Summary: AngelCode Scripting Library > URL: http://www.angelcode.com/angelscript/ > %description > The AngelScript library is a software library ... *Very* confusing. First of all, more often than not the summary ought not repeat the name of the software. Especially not if that name is the package name or closely related. It ought to be a concise description of what is included in the package or what the package "does". For example: Summary: Library for easy integration of external scripting to applications Even Summary: Scripting library would be short and to the point, as it starts with what is package contains and not with who developed the library or what its name might be. The %description gives enough room to expand on that. Secondly, the %description says "AngelScript library" whereas the %summary says "AngelCode Scripting library". This is an inconsistency. The description here should not be shorter than the summary. If you consider it important, write "The AngelCode Scripting library (AngelScript)" or, even better, try to explain why the name "AngelCode" is relevant, if the library is called "AngelScript" already.
It's included in spec: %ghost %dir %{_localstatedir}/run/slim And also it should be created according to changelog: - fix #708693 - added tmfiles.d config to create /var/run/slim directory Could you please explain deeply how reproduce that problem? What exactly are you doing?
Sorry. Please ignore last comment - it is intended for another bug.
https://github.com/Hubbitus/Fedora-packaging/commit/285d4ca5374871ec1fa137b830811d9636969267 http://hubbitus.info/rpm/Fedora18/angelscript/angelscript-2.26.0-1.fc18.src.rpm
Since this bug report has not seen any activity in more then 2 years now, and there is a new active attempt at packaging angelscript, I'm going to close this one as a dup of the new review-request. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1215414 ***
Hans why you close my review request?? I ready for review. Do you willing do it?
(In reply to Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) from comment #10) > Hans why you close my review request?? I ready for review. Do you willing do > it? We already did it %) *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1215414 ***
Hi Pavel, (In reply to Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) from comment #10) > Hans why you close my review request?? I ready for review. Do you willing do > it? Sorry, as stated since this review had not seen any activity for 2 years (like e.g. updating the submitted srpm to keep track with upstream) and a new attempt at packaging was being done in bug 1215414, so I thought it would be better to continue there. Anyways the review of the package as submitted in bug 1215414 is done now, and that package has been imported into Fedora, so now we have angelscript in Fedora which IMHO is the important thing. If you want to co-maintain angelscript you need to ask Igor, I personally think that that would be a good idea. I notice at your github that you still have lots of packages there, if you're interested in getting those into the official Fedora repos, and you've review-requests open, then I suggest that ask on the fedora-devel list for review swaps. Your packages are not going to get reviewed by just letting the review requests sit in bugzilla, in order for the review system to work you must review aprox. as much packages as you submit / want to have reviewed. And the easiest way to guarantee that is asking for review swaps on the devel list. Regards, Hans