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=772608 --- Comment #20 from Gal Hammer <ghammer@xxxxxxxxxx> 2012-03-28 06:29:25 EDT --- (In reply to comment #18) > This package has a crazy number of build dependencies, but if you think you can > keep it all working, more power to you :) That's all gdm staff :-). > I would recommend changing > > BuildRequires: pkgconfig(libcanberra-gtk) > > to > > BuildRequires: libcanberra-devel > The current mechanism is prone to error and hard to understand > > Along those same lines > > Change > BuildRequires: pkgconfig(accountsservices) to > > to: > BuildRequires accountsservices-devel > > # No gdm-devel package is available for plug-in development. So for now > # we build the gdm package. > Source1: gdm-3.2.1.1-6.fc16.src.rpm > > Hacking around the problem by bundling a source rpm is not acceptable. The > proper solution is to fix the problem: > > 1. file a gdm bug > 2a. if you want it fixed fast, sort out how to change gdm packaging to provide > a devel package that exports what you need and feed it into the bugzilla > or > 2b. block on gdm maintainer providing devel package > > An alternative is not to build/provide the gdm plugin until this upstream > problem is sorted out. This is why mock is not building (gdm requires xorg > server, which the build system can't sort out) > > Even if this were permissible, I'm uncertain the build system could handle it > properly. Since it is not permissible, whether the build system could be > hacked to make it work is not relevant ;) > > The review is blocked on this issue. gdm-3 added a gdm-devel package, so I've fixed the build process to use it. It is no longer required to build the whole gdm source tree. The exception is for older distribution (e.g. rhel) which still use gdm-2. -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review