Spec URL: http://cicku.me/doublecmd-qt4.spec SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/doublecmd-qt4-0.5.6-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: Double Commander is a cross platform open source file manager with two panels side by side. It is inspired by Total Commander and features some new ideas. Here are some key features of Double Commander: - Unicode support - All operations working in background - Multi-rename tool - Tabbed interface - Custom columns - Internal text editor (F4) with syntax hightlighting - Built in file viewer (F3) to view files of in hex, binary or text format - Archives are handled like subdirectories. You can easily copy files to and from archives. Supported archive types: ZIP, TAR GZ, TGZ, LZMA and also BZ2, RPM, CPIO, DEB, RAR. - Extended search function with full text search in any files - Configurable button bar to start external programs or internal menu commands - Total Commander WCX, WDX and WLX plug-ins support - File operations logging Fedora Account System Username: cicku
A *.desktop file needs to be installed explicitely or validated: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#desktop-file-install_usage Besides that, desktop-file-utils are needed as a build requirement. The package contains the file /usr/bin/doublecmd. The same file is in the package doublecmd-gtk2 (bug #989792), which would cause a package conflict. You have added a Conflicts: tag to both packages, but I wouldn't recommend this really. You should try to package both from the same source rpm instead and rename the files appropriately. If you would do so, you could move the files shared between the two versions to a -common subpackage (noarch), such as docs, icons, man pages, wherever possible.
(In reply to Mario Blättermann from comment #1) > A *.desktop file needs to be installed explicitely or validated: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#desktop-file-install_usage Fixed. > The package contains the file /usr/bin/doublecmd. The same file is in the > package doublecmd-gtk2 (bug #989792), which would cause a package conflict. > You have added a Conflicts: tag to both packages, but I wouldn't recommend > this really. You should try to package both from the same source rpm instead > and rename the files appropriately. If you would do so, you could move the > files shared between the two versions to a -common subpackage (noarch), such > as docs, icons, man pages, wherever possible. I understand your meaning, but the fact is that Lazarus only supports one widgetset(gtk2 or qt) in one time, so I cannot build them in one src rpm, ./build.sh beta qt if then I run ./build.sh beta gtk2, the newly built things will override the generated qt files. This also happen in another package I haven't submitted.
At the end of %prep you could copy the builddir contents to a second builddir.
(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #3) > At the end of %prep you could copy the builddir contents to a second > builddir. After consulting with upstream, they said that I can use another way: ./build.sh beta gtk2 ./build.sh save gtk2 and ./build.sh beta qt ./build.sh save qt then install/linux/install.sh gtk2 from saved gtk2 and install/linux/install.sh qt4 from saved qt4. Is it alright? I don't have time today, tomorrow may have a try.
> Is it alright? Dunno. I haven't examined the source code that much. One more general way is to create a copy of the source tree (e.g. in %prep), so you get two trees which you can configure differently (likely with a strict set of --enable-foo/--disable-foo options).
Is there any decision made how to proceed with doublecmd? In any case, you should close one ticket of doublecmd-qt and doublecmd-gtk. It would be odd to generate to srpms for the two packages.
Any progress here...?
(In reply to Mario Blättermann from comment #7) > Any progress here...? Same question again...? Anyway, you should open a new review ticket for doublecmd and mark doublecmd-qt4 and doublecmd-gtk2 as duplicates. In fact both of the current tickets are NotReady.
(In reply to Mario Blättermann from comment #7) > Any progress here...? http://vondruch.fedorapeople.org/doublecmd/
Should I take the request by clone this bug and closing?
Hi Christopher, are you still interested in mainting this package? If not, I would suggest to consider this as a dead review, unfortunately.
Ping? Again?
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #12) > Ping? Again?
WTF? What's this here? No progress since monthes. Sorry to raise and sound unfriendly but this issue here is generally no acceptable process.
Taking over here. Closing.