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=541535 --- Comment #2 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil <oget.fedora@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-12-05 16:09:21 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > > rpmlint is silent. > > Okay, lemme add some noise then. ;) > > Thanks for getting your hands dirty :) > > # There are some MIT files but the effective license is GPLv2+ > > License: GPLv2+ > > The comment is confusing. What files do you refer to? > > In case any source files applied a license other than GPLv2+, the guidelines > would want you to make that clear. > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Mixed_Source_Licensing_Scenario > > All of the source files contain a GPLv2+ header, though. Only some autotools' > scripts/files contain other headers, but we don't give them special treatment > with regard to the licensing guidelines. > > Ah, I probably was going thru the source files and saw the MIT headers in the autotools files and didn't pay attention what they actually are for. I'll remove the comment. > > raul-gcc44.patch > > ... > > +#include <stdio.h> > > In C++ the proper header is <cstdio> though. > Yes. But it's not too big of a deal (Is it?). And upstream accepted and applied my <stdio.h> patch to the trunk. > > > %check > > pushd tests > > export LD_PRELOAD=../src/.libs/lib%{name}.so > > IMO, better would be this set-up: > > export LD_LIBRARY_PATH=${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_libdir} > Could you tell me what makes this better? Don't they serve the same purpose in this case? Does LD_PRELOAD have a potential of hiding errors or breaking thing? > > > rpm -i /home/qa/tmp/rpm/RPMS/raul-devel-0.5.1-1.fc12.i686.rpm \ > > /home/qa/tmp/rpm/RPMS/raul-0.5.1-1.fc12.i686.rpm > > error: Failed dependencies: > > liblo-devel is needed by raul-devel-0.5.1-1.fc12.i686 > > Uh, it requires another -devel package that wasn't needed for building it. > A "Requires" in the devel package does not necessarily mean that you need that package during building. Just check the header files that go into the devel package and you will understand what I mean :). You will see that some #include headers from liblo and some #include headers from: > > boost-devel > > glib2-devel > > jack-audio-connection-kit-devel > > liblo-devel > So these requirements are for development purposes. > > $ pkg-config --cflags raul > > -pthread -I/usr/include/glibmm-2.4 -I/usr/lib/glibmm-2.4/include > > -I/usr/include/sigc++-2.0 -I/usr/lib/sigc++-2.0/include > > -I/usr/include/glib-2.0 -I/usr/lib/glib-2.0/include > > $ pkg-config --libs raul > > -pthread -lraul -lglibmm-2.4 -lgobject-2.0 -lsigc-2.0 -lgthread-2.0 > > -lglib-2.0 -ljack -lpthread -lrt > > "Requires: glibmm24-devel libsigc++20-devel" is missing in raul-devel. Only > because the pkg-config file adds them explicitly. > > Upstream might add proper "Requires" to raul.pc.in, in particular since some of > these explicitly added libraries are not needed when building with libraul. > Should I remove these entries from the .pc file: -lglibmm-2.4 -lgobject-2.0 -lsigc-2.0 lgthread-2.0 -lglib-2.0 -ljack I don't think they are really required. > > > $ grep mm include/raul/* > > AtomRDF.hpp:#include <redlandmm/Node.hpp> > > AtomRDF.hpp:#include <redlandmm/World.hpp> > > Command.hpp:#include <raul/Semaphore.hpp> > > Command.hpp:#include <boost/utility.hpp> > > Stateful.hpp:#include <redlandmm/Model.hpp> > > $ sudo repoquery --whatprovides /usr/include\*/redlandmm/Node.hpp > $ > > Not in Fedora yet. Exactly. That's why I didn't add BR: redlandmm-devel (or whatever it is called) to the Requires of the devel package. I will add it once this package is in Fedora. For the time being this won't break anything. I don't know of any software that uses redlandmm feature of raul. In particular, redlandmm needs redland >= 1.0.8 or higher. But even in rawhide we still have 1.0.7. I talked to the maintainer and got the response that it is being worked on. I guess the progress is a little slow. -- 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