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: anjuta - A GNOME development IDE for C/C++ https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433199 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2008-03-16 04:59 EST ------- For 2.2.3-4: * rpath issue - Removing rpath can be done by the following. (ref: bug 432468) -------------------------------------------------------------- %prep %setup -q %patch0 -p1 %patch1 -p1 ....... iconv --from-code ISO8859-1 --to-code UTF-8 ./THANKS \ --output THANKS.utf-8 && mv THANKS.utf-8 ./THANKS sed -i.libdir_syssearch -e \ '/sys_lib_dlsearch_path_spec/s|/usr/lib |/usr/lib /usr/lib64 /lib64 |' \ configure sed -i.gecko -e 's|-R\$GECKO_HOME||' configure # on ppc64, pangox.pc contains rpath linkage # -R/usr/lib64. Argh!! mkdir -p PKGCONFIG sed -e 's|-R/usr/lib64||' %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/pangox.pc > \ PKGCONFIG/pangox.pc %build export PKG_CONFIG_PATH=$(pwd)/PKGCONFIG %configure ...... -------------------------------------------------------------- Note: 1. I don't usually edit libtool but configure because libtool is created from configure. 2. This leaves non-standard rpath on libanjuta-class-gen.so, however this rpath must not be removed. -------------------------------------------------------------- [tasaka1@localhost anjuta2]$ objdump --headers --private-headers /usr/lib/anjuta/libanjuta-class-gen.so | grep RPATH RPATH /usr/lib/anjuta [tasaka1@localhost anjuta2]$ ldd -r /usr/lib/anjuta/libanjuta-class-gen.so | grep /usr/lib/anjuta libanjuta-project-wizard.so => /usr/lib/anjuta/libanjuta-project-wizard.so (0x00125000) -------------------------------------------------------------- 3. GECKO related rpath related to libanjuta-devhelp.so -------------------------------------------------------------- [tasaka1@localhost anjuta2]$ ldd -r /usr/lib/anjuta/libanjuta-devhelp.so >/dev/null [tasaka1@localhost anjuta2]$ ldd -r /usr/lib/anjuta/libanjuta-devhelp.so | grep devhelp libdevhelp-1.so.0 => /usr/lib/libdevhelp-1.so.0 (0x0017e000) -------------------------------------------------------------- If the linkage on libdevhelp-1.so is correct (on Fedora it seems correct), then libanjuta-devhelp.so doesn't have to have rpath for GECKO related directory. * valgrind plugin - IMO it is better that you write a comment why you disable valgrind plugin (actually it doesn't build because binutils-devel ships non-fPIC-compiled static archives: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=518032 ) ! License - For files under plugins/editor/scintilla, they have the license term like -------------------------------------------------------------- // Scintilla source code edit control /** @file AutoComplete.cxx ** Defines the auto completion list box. **/ // Copyright 1998-2003 by Neil Hodgson <neilh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> // The License.txt file describes the conditions under which this software may be distributed. -------------------------------------------------------------- However License.txt cannot be found anywhere. From http://scintilla.sourceforge.net/License.txt it seems MIT (so GPLv2+ compatible), however would you ask the upstream to add License.txt from the next version? (In reply to comment #8) > > ! Note > > You don't have to write || : multiple times on scriptlets. > > I do that because Hans had once asked me to do so: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=247417#c19 > > Is this a problem? If it is, then I will have to fix a number of my existing > packages. - What I mean here is that all || : can be replaced with just adding one line of "exit 0" (and with this Hans actually doesn't complain :) ) Of cource writing multiple || : is not a problem. I just don't want to write it many times :) -- 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