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: qgis - A user friendly Open Source Geographic Information System https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241403 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-06-23 02:20 EST ------- (In reply to comment #21) > (In reply to comment #20) > > * rpm call > > Sorry; what would the "proper way" be? The cmake script tries to lookup the > grass library in the wrong locations and I need to tell it that the library > lives under a directory like /usr/lib/grass-6.2.1. - On rawhide, it is /usr/lib/grass-6.2.2RC1 and rpm EVR is grass-6.2.2-0.2.RC1.fc8 so anyway this usage of rpm cannot be used. The simplest way is -------------------------------------------------------------- for dir in %{_libdir}/grass-*/ ; do GRASSDIR=$dir done %cmake \ -D GRASS_PREFIX=$GRASSDIR \ ......... -------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE: /usr/lib/grass-6.2.2RC1/etc/VERSIONNUMBER is in grass package, however when I try mockbuild of 0.8.1-2, this cannot be found as -------------------------------------------------------------- grass is not installed -------------------------------------------------------------- ... because grass-devel requiers grass-libs, but does not require grass itself. > > * non-sover libraries with providing -devel subpackage. > > Upstream does not provide a sover with their library but their program links > against it: > $ ldd /usr/bin/qgis | grep libqgis_core.so > libqgis_core.so => /usr/lib/libqgis_core.so (0x03099000) > $ ldd /usr/lib/qgis/libgrass*.so | grep libqgisgrass.so > libqgisgrass.so => /usr/lib/libqgisgrass.so (0x00673000) > libqgisgrass.so => /usr/lib/libqgisgrass.so (0x002fc000) This is not what I said as a problem because this linkage is done *within* qgis package itself As I said in comment #20: > * non-sover libraries with providing -devel subpackage. > - Shipping non-sover libraries with providing -devel subpackage > is unwilling because: > > Shipping -devel package means that the libraries %{_libdir}/*.so > is allowed to be linked *from other packages*. So some binaries in > *other package* may link to the libraries in this package. > > Then ABI of the libraries in this package may change in the future. > At this time, as these libraries have no sover, rpm has no clue of > whether ABI of these libraries changed, so rpm allows the upgrading > of this package. However, this upgrade surely stop the *other binaries* > linking to these libraries from working any more. > > Should I still move these files into the -devel package So this is not a solution - So the question is * First of all, why are the files under /usr/include/qsis needed? * Is libqgis_core.so meant to be linked *from other packages/libraries*? - If YES, then libqgis_core.so should have sover - If NO, then -devel package should not be needed and all the files under /usr/include/qsis should be removed _unless_ qgis itself uses those files (in this case, all the needed files should be moved to main package). * python - And even after some fixes, mockbuild stops at: ------------------------------------------------------------ + /bin/chmod +x /var/tmp/qgis-0.8.1-2.1.fc8-root-mockbuild//usr/share/qgis/python/test_export.py /bin/chmod: cannot access `/var/tmp/qgis-0.8.1-2.1.fc8-root-mockbuild//usr/share/qgis/python/test_export.py': No such file or directory error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.87188 (%install) ------------------------------------------------------------- - Because all python stuff are not installed on mockbuild (you seems to have removed python-devel from BuildRequires. This causes the difference between your local rpmbuild and mockbuild) -- 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