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: speech-dispatcher - Required for speech synthesis on OLPC XO https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=432259 ------- Additional Comments From goyal.hemant@xxxxxxxxx 2008-02-16 02:34 EST ------- Hi, I have updated the SPEC file to use the latest speech-dispatcher release. The SPEC file can be accessed at : http://www.nsitonline.in/hemant/stuff/speechd-rpm/speech-dispatcher.spec The SRPM can be accessed at : http://www.nsitonline.in/hemant/stuff/speechd-rpm/speech-dispatcher-0.6.6-1.fc7.src.rpm - Python packages are finally getting built. (However I must force --prefix to the correct value to make this work. Otherwise the python packages get installed in %{_prefix} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_prefix}) Thanks! Hemant (In reply to comment #7) > Thanks for the input :) > > > * bconf > > - Your usage of bconf conditional treatment is not right. > > Please to the following link for example. > > http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/*checkout*/rpms/gimp/devel/gimp.spec > > I tried to use this approach for conditional build but somehow was unsuccessful. > If this approach is absolutely needed, I will spend more time and fix it. (At > this moment my attempt is commented out for your reference) > > > * BuildRequires > > - It seems dotconf is not in Fedora yet. > > If you want to use dotconf, you have to submit another review request > > for dotconf. > > I am on it, thank you for letting me know about the issue. > > > * Directory ownership issue > > - Please make it sure that all directories which are created when installing > > a rpm are owned by some package. > > For example, the directory %{_sysconfdir}/peech-dispatcher itself is > > not owned by any packages. > > Am i supposed to set the Directory permissions to a particular value? If that is > the case I applied the same permissions as was done for GIMP. > > > * libtool .la files > > - must be removed. > > Done. I was getting a build error, and for that reason i had to add the macro > %define _unpackaged_files_terminate_build 0. > > > * EVR (Epoch-Version-Release) specific dependency > > - The dependency between subpackages must be EVR (not only Version) > > specific. > > Added, I hope it has been done correctly. > > > * /sbin/ldconfig > > - (Usually, and actually for this package) calling > > /sbin/ldconfig is not needed for -devel package. > > Commented out. > > > * Static archive > > - Packaging static archive is forbidden when providing shared > > libraries, please remove them. > > Also please check if configure accepts --disable-static option. > > Removed the static libraries. The present script when run with --without > static_libs works fine, and disables static libs. > > > * Info file > > - Files under %_infodir are automatically marked as %doc. > > I ve removed the %doc tag. > > > * Changelog > > - Please check > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Changelogs > > - Especially using %date macro in your way is forbidden. > > In this way %date changes every time you rebuild this srpm, > > which changes the old changelog entry > > Fixed, I am now using the date format as mentioned on the website. > > > - One %changelog must be written in one spec file. > > i.e. writting %changelog for every subpackage is not allowed. > > These %changelog's must be unified. > > Done. > > > > (In reply to comment #5) > > > Also how will I distribute the init scripts since they are not part of the > > > original package? As a patch? > > - You can add it as other sources like %SOURCE1. > > Okay, thanks, I think it would be best to add this once you are happy with the > present state of the SPEC file. > > > > > ? symlink which seems modules > > - BTW does this package work well if symlink .so under > > %_libdir/speech-dispatcher are not in main package? > > These type of files are usually dlopen'ed and not aimed > > for being used from other packages (i.e. not aimed for > > being in -devel package). > > I have moved .so files to main package now, there was an issue of dangling > pointers reported by rpmlint tool when the .so files were placed in the devel > package. > > > %defattr > > - We now recommend %defattr(-,root,root,-) > > I ve applied 0755 as directory permissions, I am not absolutely clear what you > mean by the package owning the directory. > > > * %post/%postun dependency for /sbin/install-info > > - is missing for -doc-en, -doc-cs (please check > > the section "Texinfo" of > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets ) > > Are you referring to these? > Requires(post): /sbin/chkconfig /sbin/install-info > > Requires(preun): /sbin/service /sbin/install-info > > > > > ? By the way do you really want to create -doc-en, -doc-cs > > subpackages for only info files? > > I ve merged them to a single documentation package at this point. > > > > ! > > Please change release number of your spec every time you modify > > your spec file to avoid confusion. > > Sorry! I have started doing that now, and also maintaining a proper change log. > > I suppose at this stage the issues that need to be resolved : > > 1]Directory ownership > 2]BCond > 3]Dotconf packages > 4]init scripts - will put the patch as advised by you > 5]python packages refuse to get installed correctly. They get installed in a > "build" directory within BUILD and rpmbuild has no way to pick them and put them > in a python package. > > Thanks as always for being so helpful :) > > Hemant -- 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, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review