On Fri, 20 May 2011 15:46:36 +0100, PGR wrote:
> > It doesn't even build (in Plague dist-f15 buildroot) due to missing
> > BuildRequires,
> >
> > checking for LIBGLADE... no
> > configure: error: in `/builddir/build/BUILD/gtkpod-2.0.0':
> > configure: error: *** No package 'libglade-2.0' found
> > See `config.log' for more details.
> > RPM build errors:
>
> It wouldn't because the spec is designed for gtkpod 2.1.0, which no
> longer
> uses libglade.
The last spec %changelog entry only mentioned 2.0.0. If you had hardcoded
the 2.1.0 in the "Version" tag instead of replacing it with a %{REVISION},
macro. I would not have assumed that the spec is for 2.0.0.
Yep. Excellent points. To be fair I was never expecting anyone to run it
as I thought there was a syntax error. As background, the revision macro
is due to the rpm spec being run from an auto-build in a hudson system.
Anyway, lesson learned, provide more information ... ;)
> > and you haven't quoted any rpmbuild error details.
>
> The difficulty is that there are no specific rpmbuild errors, other than
> the "installed (but unpackaged file(s) found" errors.
Those are specific rpmbuild errors. ;)
> > In several places,
> > the spec file does not meet the Fedora Packaging Guidelines (e.g.
> > the explicit "Requires: libid3tag" and others for webkitgtk3,
> gstreamer),
> > the library and -devel package are in group "Applications/Multimedia"
> > by mistake. The %files section are created lots of unowned
> directories,
> > so they need some love anyway.
>
> Quite possibly.
>
> Would you mind explaining why the "Requires: libid3tag" is not correct,
> given that the libgtkpod library does require that as a dependency?
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Explicit_Requires
Right, that helps for future reference and will reduce the size of the
spec. Thanks for the link.
> > Take another look at the $RPM_BUILD_ROOT directory contents
and make
> > sure that all files and directories are assigned to your various
> %files
> > sections.
>
> An example of the problem is the file:
> /usr/lib/gtkpod/coverweb.plugin
>
> This file is listed under the plugin coverweb %files section:
> %files plugin-coverweb
> %defattr(-,root,root,-)
> %{_libdir}/%{name}/coverweb.plugin
>
> Despite this, the file is one of this listed under "Installed (but
> unpackaged) file(s) found".
On which platform did you compile it? x86_64 possibly? %{_libdir} expands
to /usr/lib64 there (and on other 64-bit multiarch platforms).
Definitely, i386. This is the crux of the matter. If I add
'%{_libdir}/%{name}/coverweb.plugin' to the main %files section. Then this
file is no longer reported as a problem.
I will do some cleanup as suggested and maybe post a more explicit version
of the problem. I just wanted confirmation really that the syntax was
wrong in some way or that
rpmbuild -ba fedora-gtk3-gtkpod.spec
was the incorrect way of generating the rpms.
Many thanks
phantomjinx