[Bug 188176] Review Request: gauche-gtk - Gauche extension module to use GTK
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: gauche-gtk - Gauche extension module to use GTK
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188176
------- Additional Comments From paul(a)city-fan.org 2006-05-05 06:17 EST -------
(In reply to comment #10)
> You can use meld to compare the two logs and see that they hardly differ
> up to the break down.
I don't think it's a mock issue; I can reproduce this failure with a local FC5
build. Still investigating.
What I don't understand is how the build can possibly succeed without
-I/usr/include/freetype2 on the failing command. What is the output of:
pkg-config --cflags gtkglext-1.0
on your local systems?
Here, I get:
-I/usr/include/gtkglext-1.0 -I/usr/lib/gtkglext-1.0/include
-I/usr/include/gtk-2.0 -I/usr/lib/gtk-2.0/include -I/usr/include/pango-1.0
-I/usr/include/cairo -I/usr/include/glib-2.0 -I/usr/lib/glib-2.0/include
-I/usr/include/atk-1.0
which does not include the necessary directory.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
17 years, 11 months
[Bug 188176] Review Request: gauche-gtk - Gauche extension module to use GTK
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: gauche-gtk - Gauche extension module to use GTK
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188176
------- Additional Comments From gemi(a)bluewin.ch 2006-05-05 04:50 EST -------
You are right: mock build fails. However outside of mock the build succeeds.
I don't know what happens here, I compared both build logs and they differed
(except for the build paths) only the moment the build fails!
I included buildrequires for some X libraries (configure checks for them),
but nothing changes (package at the same place). The only thing that I noticed
is, that some packages retrieved by mock are older than the corresponding
packages I have installed locally (both mock and local are FC5), for example
cairo = 1.0.4 locally but 1.0.2 in mock, and gtk = 2.8.15 in mock vs 2.8.17
locally.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
17 years, 11 months
[Bug 188176] Review Request: gauche-gtk - Gauche extension module to use GTK
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: gauche-gtk - Gauche extension module to use GTK
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188176
------- Additional Comments From tibbs(a)math.uh.edu 2006-05-05 00:00 EST -------
Building on i386 with the fixed gauche gets further, but then fails:
gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions
-fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4
-m32 -march=i386 -mtune=generic -fasynchronous-unwind-tables
-I'/usr/lib/gauche/0.8.7/include' -fomit-frame-pointer -ma
rch=i686 -DUSE_I686_PREFETCH `pkg-config --cflags gtkglext-1.0` -c -o
glgdGraph.o glgdGraph.c
In file included from /usr/include/pango-1.0/pango/pangofc-font.h:25,
from /usr/include/pango-1.0/pango/pangoft2.h:29,
from glgd.h:21,
from gauche-glgd.h:26,
from glgdGraph.c:12:
/usr/include/ft2build.h:56:38: error: freetype/config/ftheader.h: No such file
or directory
and then there are cascading errors off of that; I'll attach the build log if
you're interested. I thought the problem might be a missing BR: freetype-devel,
but no luck. usr/include/freetype2/freetype/config/ftheader.h does exist. It
almost seems as if a call to pkgconfig --cflags freetype2 needs to be made.
I'm not really sure what's up. I know you wouldn't have submitted these
packages if they didn't build for you, but I'm just having no luck at all
building them. Are you able to do mock builds? I'm pretty sure my build setup
is working OK, so you should be able to see the same failures I'm seeing.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
17 years, 11 months
[Bug 174952] Review Request: lightning - GNU Lightning
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: lightning - GNU Lightning
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=174952
jpmahowald(a)gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779
nThis| |
------- Additional Comments From jpmahowald(a)gmail.com 2006-05-04 22:52 EST -------
rpmlint of lightning-1.2-3.i386.rpm:E: lightning no-binary
W: lightning devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/lightning/ppc/fp.h
W: lightning devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/lightning/ppc/funcs.h
W: lightning devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/lightning/core.h
W: lightning devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/lightning/ppc/core.h
W: lightning devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/lightning/sparc/funcs.h
W: lightning devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/lightning/fp.h
W: lightning devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/lightning/sparc/asm.h
W: lightning devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/lightning/ppc/asm.h
W: lightning devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/include/lightning/i386/funcs.hW: lightning devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/include/lightning/fp-common.h
W: lightning devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/lightning/i386/fp.h
W: lightning devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/lightning/i386/core.h
W: lightning devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/lightning/asm.h
W: lightning devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/lightning/i386/asm.h
W: lightning devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/include/lightning/asm-common.hW: lightning devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/include/lightning/core-common.h
W: lightning devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/lightning/funcs.h
W: lightning devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/include/lightning/sparc/core.hW: lightning devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/include/lightning/funcs-common.h
W: lightning devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/lightning/sparc/fp.h
These are all rather necessary for lightningize to lightningize something.
(Which it seemed to do successfully)
- package meets naming guidelines
- package meets packaging guidelines
- license is either GPL or LGPL both included and OK
- spec file legible, in am. english
- source matches upstream
- package compiles on FC5 (i386)
- no missing BR
- no unnecessary BR
- no locales
- not relocatable
- owns all directories that it creates
- no duplicate files
- permissions ok
- %clean ok
- macro use consistent
- code, not content
- no need for -docs
- nothing in %doc affects runtime
- no need for .desktop file
This is something to add to the exclude x86_64 tracker.
APPROVED
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
17 years, 11 months
[Bug 180319] Review Request: svnmailer - Tool to post subversion repository commit information
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: svnmailer - Tool to post subversion repository commit information
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=180319
bugzilla(a)redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
QAContact|fedora-extras- |fedora-package-
|list(a)redhat.com |review(a)redhat.com
jpmahowald(a)gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|roozbeh(a)farsiweb.info |jpmahowald(a)gmail.com
OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779
nThis| |
------- Additional Comments From jpmahowald(a)gmail.com 2006-05-04 21:04 EST -------
The documentation may actually be of some use, as it's needed to generate a
config file. But it does make sense to split it off. You may want to remove an
annoying extra doc folder by doing in the %files doc section something like
%doc docs/*
But that's optional. Also a good idea would be a version bump to 1.0.8.
For now:
- rpmlint checks return clean
- package meets naming guidelines
- package meets packaging guidelines
- license (Apache Software License) OK, text in %doc, matches source
- spec file legible, in am. english
- source matches upstream
- package compiles on FC5 (x86_64)
- no missing BR
- no unnecessary BR
- no locales
- not relocatable
- owns all directories that it creates
- no duplicate files
- permissions ok
- %clean ok
- macro use consistent
- code, not content
- nothing in %doc affects runtime
- no need for .desktop file
APPROVED
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
17 years, 11 months
[Bug 186327] Review Request: tcltls
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: tcltls
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=186327
wart(a)kobold.org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|Jochen(a)herr-schmitt.de |bugzilla-sink(a)leemhuis.info
------- Additional Comments From wart(a)kobold.org 2006-05-04 14:11 EST -------
Unassigning bug since the reviewer can't sponsor. This will let sponsors know
that it's up for grabs.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
17 years, 11 months