> 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
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
