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: mapnik - a Free toolkit for developing mapping applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=436704 rezso@xxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?(rezso@xxxxxxxx) | ------- Additional Comments From rezso@xxxxxxxx 2008-07-23 11:39 EST ------- new packs: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/mapnik.spec http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/mapnik-0.5.1-2.fc9.src.rpm (In reply to comment #19) > For 0.5.1-1: > > * License > - I re-checked the whole source codes and: > ---------------------------------------------------------- > bindings/python/mapnik/__init__.py GPLv2+ > demo/ GPLv2+ > ---------------------------------------------------------- > So the license tags of -python and -demo must be fixed as > "LGPLv2+ and GPLv2+". Also write some comments in the spec file > about how files are licensed. > > * About data files under %_docdir/%name-%version/data > - I can think you want to include these data files for some reasons? > If so, while I think for now this license has no problem, however > I also think I must once pass this license to spot. done. - python has explicit license tag - created a new -demo package with explicit license tag - those vector datas should stay for demo purpose, explicit license cover tham fine (a local copy from original website): /usr/share/doc/mapnik-demo-0.5.1/data/mapnik-data.license > > * Dependency for -python subpackage > - Would you check this again? > For example, /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/mapnik/ogcserver/common.py > contains: > ----------------------------------------------------------- > 24 from PIL.Image import fromstring, new > 25 from PIL.ImageDraw import Draw > 30 from lxml import etree as ElementTree > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This means this file needs "python-imaging" and "python-lxml". However > I don't know this file is always needed or just optional. > done. - added two requrirements for python subpackage > * Linkage error > - For example: > ----------------------------------------------------------- > $ ldd -r /usr/bin/gdal.input >/dev/null > undefined symbol: _ZNK6mapnik8EnvelopeIdE4minyEv (/usr/bin/gdal.input) > undefined symbol: _ZN6mapnik8EnvelopeIdEC1Edddd (/usr/bin/gdal.input) > undefined symbol: _ZN6mapnik8EnvelopeIdE4initEdddd (/usr/bin/gdal.input) > undefined symbol: _ZNK6mapnik8EnvelopeIdE4minxEv (/usr/bin/gdal.input) > undefined symbol: _ZN6mapnik8EnvelopeIdEC1Ev (/usr/bin/gdal.input) > undefined symbol: _ZNK6mapnik8EnvelopeIdE4maxxEv (/usr/bin/gdal.input) > undefined symbol: _ZN6mapnik8EnvelopeIdEC1ERKS1_ (/usr/bin/gdal.input) > undefined symbol: _ZNK6mapnik8EnvelopeIdE6heightEv (/usr/bin/gdal.input) > undefined symbol: _ZNK6mapnik8EnvelopeIdE4maxyEv (/usr/bin/gdal.input) > undefined symbol: _ZNK6mapnik8EnvelopeIdE9intersectERKS1_ > (/usr/bin/gdal.input) > undefined symbol: _ZNK6mapnik8EnvelopeIdE5widthEv (/usr/bin/gdal.input) > ----------------------------------------------------------- > perhaps some linkage error happened. > By the way: > ------------------------------------------------------------ > $ file /usr/bin/gdal.input > /usr/bin/gdal.input: ELF 32-bit LSB shared object, Intel 80386, version 1 > (SYSV), dynamically linked, stripped > ------------------------------------------------------------ > This seems to be a library, not executable binary?? (you seem to > be moving these files intentionally to %_bindir, would you verify if > it is correct?) done. - fixed linkage error for all plugins - these plugins will stay in _libdir/mapnik/ -- 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