Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455555 --- Comment #8 from Oron Peled <oron@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-08-03 17:31:15 EDT --- (In reply to comment #7) > (In reply to comment #6) > > (In reply to comment #5) > > > ** Requires > > > * Requires for -devel subpackage > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > > This means that libhocr-devel subpackage must have "Requires: gtk2-devel" > > > > > > B. %_libdir/pkgconfig/libhocr.pc contains: > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Libs: -lhocr -lhspell -lz -ltiff -lm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > > This means that libhocr-devel must have > > > "Requires: hspell-devel zlib-devel libtiff-devel" (because of > > > -lhspell -lz -ltiff) > > > However all these 3 linkage seem unneeded, because none of the > > > header files in libhocr-devel needs header files from > > > fftw-devel, hspell-devel, libtiff-devel. > > > I guess "@ld_hspell@ @ld_tiff@" in libhocr.pc.in should be removed. > > > > Their inclusion in the .pc file is correct since they are used > > by the applications, either explicitly (tiffio.h and fftw3.h) or > > implicitly (hspell via gtkspell). > > I guess currently I don't understand what you want to say correctly. > libhocr-devel itself does not need tiffio.h or fftw3.h. Sorry, my previous reply wasn't clear enough: 1. You are correct that fftw-devel and libtiff-devel should not be required by libhocr, since only libhocr *implementation* uses them. (fixed, they are only mentioned in BuildRequires). 2. However, I think that we still need them listed in the .pc files for other (future) applications that may want to link against libhocr. Such applications would probably have in their build something like: libhocr_LIBS=`pkgconfig --libs libhocr` So the linker would add '-lfftw -ltiff' 3. TODO: libz is also mentioned in libhocr.pc, but I want to fix it first with upstream, since the author forgot to check for it in its configure.ac (actually, it's a dependency of hspell which don't come with pkgconfig file of its own). 4. TODO: hspell should be removed from libhocr.pc (IMO) since its not linked explicitly, but rather loaded during runtime by gtkspell. I'll discuss it with upstream as well. 5. I added "Requires: hspell" to the gtk subpackage because rpmbuild would not find this dependency automatically (as mentioned it is detected by gtkspell during runtime). > > > * Timestamps > > > - To keep timestamps on installed files, please consider to use > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > make install \ > > > INSTALL="install -p" \ > > > DESTDIR=%{buildroot} \ > > > ..... > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > > This method usually works for based Makefiles based on recent > > > autotools > > > > Hmmm... first time I see this consideration. It seems logical > > but are these any guideline about it? > > Although in PackagingDrafts, I usually recommend this: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/MultilibTricks#Timestamps Fixed. [added the link to my bookmarks, as it does not appear in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts]. > > > * Desktop files > > > - Category "X-Fedora" is deprecated and should be removed. > > > > Done. I must have got its addition from some obsolete guide > > somewhere but I cannot find any reference to it now, nevermind. > > Perhaps this is difficult to find: > http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-October/msg00725.html Thanks, I also noticed we are blocked on rawhide by bug 457502 So now libhocr can be used as a debugging tool as well ;-) -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review