Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526444 --- Comment #16 from Guido Grazioli <guido.grazioli@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-11-17 12:31:34 EDT --- (In reply to comment #15) > [fix] > Release should be: 0.2.2332svn%{?dist} > So you get a 3.0.0-0.2.2332svn package > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Package_Release > > [fix] > You use a mix of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot} > > [fix] > No need for VERBOSE=1 in %build > Ok, i'm working on the above issues. > [fix] > You use %cmake but no macro for the rest of the commands like install, sed. > I have seen use of core commands without macros in other packages; are macros mandatory? %cmake does a lot of things while %install and %sed are just wrappers > I rebuilt it here and it was running after i installed mygui and mygui-tools (i > tried the LayoutEditor). > Does it make sense to have mygui installed alone? Can one do anything with it, > without the tools? > If not, make the tools installed with the mainpackage, or maybe merge the tool > package into the main package. MyGUI is a library that allows to build UIs defined with xml files, so yes, i think most installations will only involve the main package. The LayoutEditor is a (ongoing development) tool to help create those xml files, helping developers in designing uis. I could require -devel for the -tools to render that explicit, even if the tools works alone. Please share your thoughts. > As well it couldn't load anything from the list (within the load dialog). > Maybe just me. The current file dialog doesnt filter out unsupported files, and the working directory is a dotdir that contains some other files needed to run the editor. Can you please report if saving a simple design (a window with a button for instance), closing the editor, then loading it again works? > Are the code template files needed outside a develpackage? Does the program > work without them installed? You could move them into the devel package and > make that installed by default as well. The templates are meant for code generation by LayoutEditor, that's why they included them in Media subdirectory; note that code generation is not in LayoutEditor yet. atm LayoutEditor will work without them, but i included those files here to pass under the review process. I can only add that suse folks have packaged the templates in {_datadir} as well. > [fix] > rpmlint -I dangling-symlink > dangling-symlink: > The target of the symbolic link does not exist within this package or its file > based dependencies. Verify spelling of the link target and that the target is > included in a package in this package's dependency chain. Need help here; the two fonts linked are provided by package dejavu-sans-fonts, which is among requires. After installation, the symlinks are working. Should i add a file based require? Adding BRs is not enough to make warning go away. > [fix] > rpmlint from installed packages: > > mygui.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libMyGUIEngine.so.3.0.0 > dlsym > mygui.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libMyGUIEngine.so.3.0.0 > uuid_generate > mygui.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libMyGUIEngine.so.3.0.0 > dlopen > mygui.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libMyGUIEngine.so.3.0.0 > dlcloserpmlint -I undefined-non-weak-symbol > > undefined-non-weak-symbol: > The binary contains undefined non-weak symbols. This may indicate improper > linkage; check that the binary has been linked as expected. > > You might check that linking problem with upstream. ok, i'm not on rawhide and my rpmlint wasnt reporting those warnings, i will investigate the problem. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review