On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 3:40 PM, Tim Niemueller <email@example.com
Great! I've compiled the package and got some errors:
- Unpackaged file /usr/bin/rcssmonitor3D-lite, after adding this to the
%files section I could build it.
Oh, Thanks! Since I don't have freeglut-devel installed, this file wasn't produced on my system. This file isn't useful now and I'll remove it in the %install section.
- The devel packages triggers rpmlint warnings which have to be fixed:
# rpmlint rcssserver3d-devel-0.5.9-1.fc9.x86_64.rpm
rcssserver3d-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
rcssserver3d-devel.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink
rcssserver3d-devel.x86_64: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
Would you please help me a little:
1. There are some documentation for developers, but since they're a little big, I prefer to package them in a separate package. (They will double the package size). However there are some HTML pages which I can put here as documentation (I wanted to put them in the doc package). Is it necessary to have some doc files?!
2. What should I do with dangling-relative-symlink warning? The symlinks are valid, but the targets are in the main package. I don't know what should I do to prevent these warnings :( What can I do?
3. I should go home and check it again, but I think there are only some symlinks in /usr/lib. What's the problem? I don't know what else should be in this directory as other files should be in the main package.
- You should consider splitting the patch in one GCC4.3 and one rpath patch
- You are a rcssserver3d committer, right? So why not commit the fixes
and build a package from SVN?
- The patches seem to contain changes besides fixing rpath and GCC 4.3,
are these changes necessary? Should be a separate patch then.
In fact, I first committed these change to rcssserver3d's CVS and then created the patches using that. This is why all of the patches are in a single file.
Yes, I personally prefer to create a package from CVS, but since one of the review requirement was to compare the package's sources MD5 with upstream release, I thought that I can't build a package from CVS. What should I include in my review request if I build a package from the CVS code?
- The explicit requires on the libraries shouldn't be necessary,
rpmbuild should be able to figure them out automatically
I was forced to add them for SUSE Build Service. Is there any need to remove them?
- What do you mean by comment 4, the "included some so files". What are
these .so files? If these libraries are part of rcssserver3d they should
be added! I don't really understand what you mean I think.
Sorry for this ambiguity. It is stated in Fedora packaging guidelines that when a package includes versioned .so files, the .so symlinks must go in the -devel package. But I can't do that since the server's binary looks for these .so files. This is why only a few of .so files are in the -devel package.
I haven't done any runtime tests.
At least, they work on my system.
Jeff, can I do the review and you sponsor him or do you need to do the
review then as well (I can't sponsor).
Tim Niemueller <firstname.lastname@example.org> www.niemueller.de
Imagination is more important than knowledge. (Albert Einstein)
Fedora-robotics-list mailing list