/*Tim Niemueller <tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>*/ wrote on 06/10/2008 08:31:25 PM:
Hedayat Vatankhah schrieb:
...
- 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
...
/usr/lib64/rcssserver3d/libtinyxml.so libtinyxml.so.0.0.0
rcssserver3d-devel.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink
...
rcssserver3d-devel.x86_64: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
...
The main package should have README, AUTHORS, LICENSE files etc., the
verbose documentation is well-placed in the -doc subpackage. You can
ignore the no-documentation warning in that case for the other packages.
OK, so I'll ignore this warning and will create -doc package. The main
package has the mentioned 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?
The link should probably point to the full path, not just the file. Give
it a try, I'm not absolutely sure on this one.
OK, I'll check it
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 mean for the very same problem?
Oh sorry, I was talking about this error:
E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
...
Just a short explanation like "CVS contains fixes needed for proper
Fedora packaging". You need then a special release number like
0.5.10-0.1.cvs20080610. Note the release number of 0.1. This is required
to allow for proper upgrading when the final 0.5.10 is released.
OK, thanks.
- 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?
It's a recommendation in the guidelines to *not* have these explicit
requires if not really necessary. You can just leave it out in the
Fedora block.
OK!
- 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.
Does it explicitly dlopen these files? Auto-linking at runtime should
catch this otherwise. If it dlopens the files these could account as
"plugins" or so, and in that case I think it is fine to have these in
the main package.
Yes, they ARE plugins.
OK, thank you very much. I'll fix my .spec file and will create a new
SRPM using CVS version of the server.
Good luck,
Hedayat
I haven't done any runtime tests.
At least, they work on my system.
Good.
Tim
_______________________________________________
Fedora-robotics-list mailing list
Fedora-robotics-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-robotics-list
