https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2327257 --- Comment #4 from joescat <digital@xxxxxxxxxxx> --- Thanks for looking and catching the "GPL-3.0-or-later". I've updated the SPEC, SRPM, and also included an F40 x86_64 RPM file too. As this is the first build I've made, I'm not too sure what to expect since the git repo contains older gimp-fix-ca version4.0 and I'd like to ensure we skip past that, and that we build gimp3-fix-ca version0.1. If {%autorelease/%autochangelog} can handle skipping the earlier 0.4, we can go ahead with that edit. > if you want you may trim the Requires for libs due to automatic .so name & version reconigtion gimp3 is a pretty complicated project, built and maintained by a team of developers, and if I run ldd /usr/lib64/gimp/3.0/plug-ins/fix-ca/fix-ca provides a fairly large list of libs to follow. It would be too easy to miss something important, plus following just lib release versions doesn't provide a full picture of what's needed. For example, looking at: "Requires: gettext >= 0.21" on Mageia 9 I see: ldd /usr/bin/gettext linux-vdso.so.1 (0x00007ffce7dfa000) libintl.so.8 => /lib64/libintl.so.8 (0x00007efee5ba7000) libc.so.6 => /lib64/libc.so.6 (0x00007efee59d5000) /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x00007efee5bd6000) on Fedora 40 I see: liveuser@localhost-live:~$ ldd /usr/bin/gettext linux-vdso.so.1 (0x00007fffdd11c000) libc.so.6 => /lib64/libc.so.6 (0x00007f6d75402000) /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x00007f6d7560e000) In both cases above, libc.so.6 can get updated for any number of reasons, like CVEs, other programs that require a more up to date libc, etc. but libc version does not tell me if the "locale" data files are at version 0.21 or higher. We need to ensure that the locale data is complete, and at 0.21 or better. You'll also notice that libintl got merged into libc (above). Asking rpm to check if the minimum package is 0.21 is just one question, nice and simple. Similar issue with bable. liveuser@localhost-live:~$ ldd /usr/bin/babl linux-vdso.so.1 (0x00007ffeb5def000) libbabl-0.1.so.0 => /lib64/libbabl-0.1.so.0 (0x00007fd873216000) libc.so.6 => /lib64/libc.so.6 (0x00007fd873029000) libm.so.6 => /lib64/libm.so.6 (0x00007fd872f46000) liblcms2.so.2 => /lib64/liblcms2.so.2 (0x00007fd872ee2000) /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x00007fd873386000) Looking at libbabl-0.1.so.0 does not tell me if it is babl 0.108 or 0.110, and I do require 0.110 due to API changes. rpm package manager tells me yes, 0.110. Oddly, I cannot do this Fedora F40: liveuser@localhost-live:~$ ldd /usr/bin/gegl but rpm package manager assures me that it is the recent version 0.4.50 I require, not the 0.4.48 or 0.4.49 gimp3 is a bit tricky.... we have a tagpoint of RC1, but the version is still 2.99.19 from several months ago, and we've had several API changes happen between 2.99.19 and RC1 - again, this is best to look for an RC1 release, so if the distro doesn't have it, there is no point in building the plugin. Trimming the requires to just check for lib versions won't tell me about the state of included data. Thanks for suggesting it, but gimp3 is a pretty complicated package, and I think it would seem safer for rpm to be checking for complete packages. I've included a fedora x86_64 rpm file, and if you run a fresh USB live Fedora F40, simply clicking the single rpm file takes care of installing every package required to run the plugin - this by itself seems to be a pretty cool thing - a running gimp plus plugin all in one step :-) https://github.com/JoesCat/gimp3-fix-ca/blob/fedora_rpm_spec/fedora/gimp3-fix-ca-0.1-0.x86_64.rpm Thanks for your review, very much appreciated. Resolved: GPL-3.0-or-later -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2327257 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202327257%23c4 -- _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
