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: qt4: Qt GUI toolkit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188180 ------- Additional Comments From laurent.rineau__fedora_extras@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2006-05-23 18:48 EST ------- (In reply to comment #116) > 2. Should all the subpackages own /usr/lib/qt4? The main package owns it This my fault. rpm has a bug, and if subpackages do not own such common directories, the latter remain when one uninstall the whole package with its subpackages. I did not know it was a rpm bug that is fixed in CVS. I wrote a mail to the FE-list, about this subject. It appears that one can own the directories this way, but it is not a must. Quote of the reply of Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta@xxxxxx>: ------------------------------------------------------------------- The guideline kind of assumes that rpm does proper erasure ordering, but as far as I know, no FC version ships with such rpm. Strictly speaking, there are *lots* of packages around that may cause empty dirs being left behind because of that (everything except "filesystem"?), and if the fix for #89500 turns out as expected, the affected ones would be instantly fixed without making any changes to packages and multi-ownership of dirs (for this particular purpose) would become zero-value specfile/rpmdb/repodata cruft. In my opinion that's why the guideline should hold. Micro-managing the dirs in a few packages here and there doesn't help much at all in the big picture. -------------------------- end of quote ---------------------------- (In reply to comment #117) > 3. Ownership of /usr/lib/qt4/plugins and /usr/lib/qt4/plugins/sqldrivers also > looks fishy... Again: added after my demand. It could be fixed, or keep this way. > Laurent, do you see anything further on x86_64? No. That's why I stopped spamming this bug after comment #115! ;-) I do not see blockers. As regards this point: (In reply to comment #116) > 1. These might need attention: > > E: qt4-devel script-without-shellbang /usr/lib/qt4/mkspecs/macx-xcode/qmake.conf > E: qt4-devel script-without-shellbang /usr/lib/qt4/mkspecs/macx-xcode/Info.plist.app > E: qt4-devel script-without-shellbang /usr/lib/qt4/mkspecs/macx-pbuilder/qmake.conf > E: qt4-devel script-without-shellbang > /usr/lib/qt4/mkspecs/macx-pbuilder/Info.plist.app > > Might need permissions to be 644? Or do we even need the macx apps packaged? The only needed directories in %{qtdir}/mkspecs are maybe linux-g++*. However, the install: rule of Qt makefiles install "make-specs" for all platforms. Maybe it can be usefull for cross-compiling or something like that. IMO, it should be keeped. I can help a Qt developer to debug a problem that occurs only on other platforms. Maybe. :-\ The permissions could be easily fixed. However, this is not a blocker. -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review