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=467655 --- Comment #7 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) <kwizart@xxxxxxxxx> 2008-10-23 19:36:36 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) > Questions: > * Why do you have the sub packages yarafay and yarafay-blender? > * Why did you have uncomment the Provides and Obsoletes Statements? Good questions. I answear the second one first: Because yafray and yafaray can co-exist. (until the contrary is proven - but there is no namespace conflict yet). Do yafaray can work with another modeler than blender ? Actually I guess it can, I think it should even be possible to run it without blender or even without Xorg installed. This minimal yafaray (-core ?) would be composed of %{_bindir}yafaray-xml and %{_libdir}/libyafaraycore.so along with %{_libdir}/libyafaray/ Now about %{_libdir}/libyafarayplugin.so, I guess it is the interface with blender that is meant to be dlopened somehow. But it can stay with the -core sub-package according to the library requirements it has. About %{_libdir}/libyafarayqt.so ? It can probably go to the main package. But as there is no more binary to run the qt interface I guess it is used by the blender plugin (it failed while testing with blender, so it is just guesses). So the main package needs to require the core sub-package and blender, along with provides the scripts and .so . It will ends to have: %files %defattr(-, root, root) %doc CODING LICENSE INSTALL %{_libdir}/libyafarayqt.so %{_datadir}/blender/scripts #And to fix the arch dependant file %{_libdir}/blender/yafaray/ #or what will be needed %files core %defattr(-, root, root) %{_bindir}/%{name}-xml %{_libdir}/libyafaraycore.so %{_libdir}/libyafarayqt.so %dir %{_libdir}/%{name} %{_libdir}/%{name}/*.so / Few others notes / * License is LGPLv2+ According to headers of the sources. "...either version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version." * Developer file in Binrary package: (it should be removed) /usr/share/doc/yafaray-0.1.0/SConstruct * Rpmlint output on installed package. ----- [root@kwizatz sequence]# rpmlint yafaray yafaray.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1.0-5 0.1.0-5.fc8.kwizart yafaray.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libyafarayqt.so yafaray.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libyafarayqt.so /lib64/libm.so.6 yafaray.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libyafaraycore.so yafaray.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libyafaraycore.so /usr/lib64/libIex.so.6 yafaray.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libyafaraycore.so /usr/lib64/libImath.so.6 yafaray.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libyafaraycore.so /lib64/libz.so.1 yafaray.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libyafarayplugin.so yafaray.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libyafarayplugin.so /lib64/libdl.so.2 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings. ------------------ unused-direct-shlib-dependency should be reported upstream. no-soname could be also be reported upstreal, even if the libraries are meant to be dlopened. (as it is the case for yafray). * gcc-c++ is already in the default buildroot. It shouldn't be specified. * Compilation must use our CFLAGS. The package is compiled with -O3, But instead it should use our $RPM_OPT_FLAGS. * Testing yafaray with blender failed. Or at least i didn't get how to make it work. (both package are installed) [kwizart@kwizatz ~]$ blender Compiled with Python version 2.5.1. Checking for installed Python... got it! Traceback (most recent call last): File "<string>", line 25, in <module> File "/usr/share/blender/scripts/yaf_export.py", line 35, in <module> import yafrayinterface File "/usr/share/blender/scripts/yafrayinterface.py", line 7, in <module> import _yafrayinterface ImportError: No module named _yafrayinterface So for now, I don't know how to make it works. -- 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