Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214087
Summary: Review Request: libextractor -- Simple library for keyword extraction Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: enrico.scholz@informatik.tu-chemnitz.de QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com
Spec URL: http://ensc.de/fedora/libextractor/ SRPM URL: http://ensc.de/fedora/libextractor/ Description: libextractor is a simple library for keyword extraction. libextractor does not support all formats but supports a simple plugging mechanism such that you can quickly add extractors for additional formats, even without recompiling libextractor. libextractor typically ships with a dozen helper-libraries that can be used to obtain keywords from common file-types.
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: libextractor -- Simple library for keyword extraction
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214087
mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp
------- Additional Comments From mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2006-11-21 12:02 EST ------- Well, I don't know this package at all, however, it seems that 0.5.16 is released.
So would you update this package?
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: libextractor -- Simple library for keyword extraction
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214087
------- Additional Comments From mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2006-12-12 03:53 EST ------- ping?
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: libextractor -- Simple library for keyword extraction
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214087
------- Additional Comments From enrico.scholz@informatik.tu-chemnitz.de 2006-12-12 14:02 EST ------- * Fri Nov 24 2006 Enrico Scholz enrico.scholz@informatik.tu-chemnitz.de - 0.5.16-1 - updated to 0.5.16; handling of libgsf linking of main library needs some rethinking: adding such a heavy dependency just to workaround a problem in one plugin is not acceptably
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: libextractor -- Simple library for keyword extraction
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214087
mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| |
------- Additional Comments From mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2006-12-13 23:26 EST ------- Okay, I will check this later.
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: libextractor -- Simple library for keyword extraction
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214087
------- Additional Comments From mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2006-12-14 11:06 EST ------- Well, three questions/issues.
* Is /usr/bin/extract work with no plugins? I think libextractor should depend at least on libextractor-plugins-base.
* Please use the more specific home URL. I suggest http://gnunet.org/libextractor/
* I think README.debian is not needed.
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: libextractor -- Simple library for keyword extraction
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214087
------- Additional Comments From enrico.scholz@informatik.tu-chemnitz.de 2006-12-18 03:12 EST ------- * Thu Dec 14 2006 Enrico Scholz enrico.scholz@informatik.tu-chemnitz.de - 0.5.16-2 - added a requirement for plugins to the main package - do not ship README.debian anymore - improved URL:
http://ensc.de/fedora/libextractor/
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: libextractor -- Simple library for keyword extraction
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214087
------- Additional Comments From mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2006-12-18 09:55 EST ------- Well,
* For main package: ---------------------------------- Requires: plugin(%name) ---------------------------------- What I meant was main package (libextract) should require at least base plugin package (libextract-plugins-base). plugin(%name) is not provided by libextract-plugins-base and then currently extra plugin package is needed for main (libextract) package.
* For fake plugin package (libextract-plugins) Dependency for pdf plugin (libextract-plugins-pdf) is missing.
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: libextractor -- Simple library for keyword extraction
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214087
------- Additional Comments From enrico.scholz@informatik.tu-chemnitz.de 2006-12-21 10:51 EST -------
- For main package:
Requires: plugin(%name)
What I meant was main package (libextract) should require at least base plugin package (libextract-plugins-base). plugin(%name) is not provided by libextract-plugins-base and then currently extra plugin package is needed for main (libextract) package.
I do not think so:
1. libextract works without plugins too. But because output is very limited in this case, you can say that plugins are highly recommended (*not* required)
Nevertheless, because 'highly recommended' can not be expressed with RPM, I accept that some 'Requires:' should be used.
2. libextract does not require the -plugins-base plugins but works e.g. with the thumbnail plugin when e.g. a collection of images shall be indexed
Therefore, I use
| Requires: plugin(%name)
which satisfies 1. and allows users to install only the really needed plugins (2.).
- For fake plugin package (libextract-plugins) Dependency for pdf plugin (libextract-plugins-pdf) is missing.
ok; I will add this dependency (but do not ship a new package for this change).
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: libextractor -- Simple library for keyword extraction
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214087
------- Additional Comments From mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2006-12-22 03:21 EST ------- Well,
(In reply to comment #8)
- For main package:
Requires: plugin(%name)
What I meant was main package (libextract) should require at least base plugin package (libextract-plugins-base).
I do not think so:
libextract works without plugins too. But because output is very limited in this case, you can say that plugins are highly recommended (*not* required)
libextract does not require the -plugins-base plugins but works e.g. with the thumbnail plugin when e.g. a collection of images shall be indexed
Therefore, I use Requires: plugin(%name)
which satisfies 1. and allows users to install only the really needed plugins (2.).
My biggest worry is that when libextractor requires plugin(libextractor), I cannot tell in advance which package this Requires actually pulls to satisfy this dependency because plugin(libextractor) is provided more than one package.
... For me, this always pulls a same package: ----------------------------------------------------- [root@localhost i386]# yum --disablerepo=*debug* --disablerepo=*dries* --disablerepo=*freshrpms* install libextractor Loading "installonlyn" plugin Setting up Install Process Setting up repositories Reading repository metadata in from local files Parsing package install arguments Resolving Dependencies --> Populating transaction set with selected packages. Please wait. ---> Package libextractor.i386 0:0.5.16-2.fc7 set to be updated --> Running transaction check --> Processing Dependency: plugin(libextractor) for package: libextractor --> Restarting Dependency Resolution with new changes. --> Populating transaction set with selected packages. Please wait. ---> Package libextractor-plugins-pdf.i386 0:0.5.16-2.fc7 set to be updated --> Running transaction check
Dependencies Resolved
============================================================================= Package Arch Version Repository Size ============================================================================= Installing: libextractor i386 0.5.16-2.fc7 LOCAL 70 k Installing for dependencies: libextractor-plugins-pdf i386 0.5.16-2.fc7 LOCAL 131 k
Transaction Summary ============================================================================= Install 2 Package(s) Update 0 Package(s) Remove 0 Package(s)
Total download size: 201 k Is this ok [y/N]: N Exiting on user Command Complete! -----------------------------------------------------
however, * I am not sure if yum always pulls -pdf package for everyone * and I am not sure if pulling -pdf package is what you expect if yum always pulls -pdf package.
If there is no "best" idea as of what plugins main package should require for a minimal usage, you may want to remove plugin requirement as before. My idea is requiring -plugins-base package is convenient for libextractor users. How do you think?
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: libextractor -- Simple library for keyword extraction
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214087
------- Additional Comments From enrico.scholz@informatik.tu-chemnitz.de 2006-12-22 07:04 EST ------- * I think, it is a bug in yum. It should fail on such ambiguities instead of using the short-name-wins method
* I see the following two solutions:
1. abuse yum's (mis)behavior and add a
| Provides: plugin(%name)
to 'libextractor-plugins' package. This will pull in all available plugins (because 'libextractor-plugins' is the shortest package name and wins therefore).
This will not address problems with smart or apt.
2. remove the 'Requires: plugin(%name)' accordingly your suggestion and add a README.fedora which explains that user has to install additional plugin packages
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: libextractor -- Simple library for keyword extraction
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214087
------- Additional Comments From mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2006-12-22 08:16 EST ------- I think the latter (No.2) of your suggestion is better if you feel no reluctance to write README.fedora .
Pulling all plugins is not preferable if this package can be used without plugins IMO.
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: libextractor -- Simple library for keyword extraction
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214087
------- Additional Comments From enrico.scholz@informatik.tu-chemnitz.de 2006-12-27 07:34 EST ------- * Wed Dec 27 2006 Enrico Scholz enrico.scholz@informatik.tu-chemnitz.de - 0.5.16-3 - added a README.fedora - removed the previously added 'Requires: plugin(%name)' - added the pdf plugin to the requirements of the -plugins subpackage
http://ensc.de/fedora/libextractor/
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: libextractor -- Simple library for keyword extraction
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214087
mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| |
------- Additional Comments From mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2006-12-28 12:52 EST ------- Well, this package is okay.
This package (libextractor) is APPROVED by me --------------------------------------------------
COMMENTS (none of the following two are blockers) - I recommend to add your name to README.fedora - My opinion is -------------------------------------------------- /etc/alternatives/libextractor_thumbnail /usr/lib/libextractor/plugins/ibextractor-thumbnail.so -------------------------------------------------- should be owned as ghost files by -thumbnailgtk and -thumbnailqt packages, however, currently no other package own /etc/alternatives/* files nor alternate link files. How do you think??
NOTES A. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines = Naming okay = Legal okay - GPL (OSI approved) - Documentation included - Actually coincide with source code license - No patent-related issue = Filesystem Layout okay = rpmlint -- not silent, however all can be ignored = Changelog proper = Tag okay = Buildroot okay (although not a format of "recommended") = Requires - not needed but for ones automatically checked by rpmbuild = BuildRequires - mockbuild okay = Summary/Description okay = Documentation - all files which should be included are all included actually = Mockbuild says Fedora specific compilation flags are passed = No static archives/la files = No use of local copy of system libraries = rpm -qa libextractor* | xargs rpm -ql | xargs /usr/lib/rpm/check-rpaths-worker does not complain = No config file = This is not GUI package = Macros are correctly handled = No mixed usage of %buildroot <-> $RPM_BUILD_ROOT = %makeinstall not used = proper %find_lang usage = Timestamps okay = Parallel make intentionally disabled = Scriptlets: ... okay - ldconfig - alternatives = Relocation disabled = Ownership okay = Not web apps, /var/www is not used
B. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines = Source download okay = md5sum coincide = No duplicate files description = %clean section okay = -doc subpackage not needed = -devel package okay = Requires ... as discussed = BuildRequires okay
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: libextractor -- Simple library for keyword extraction
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214087
karlikt@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |221349 nThis| |
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: libextractor -- Simple library for keyword extraction
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214087
------- Additional Comments From mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-01-09 08:05 EST ------- ( I can see this package imported into FE devel/6/5 and I think you can close this bug with CLOSED NEXTRELEASE )
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: libextractor -- Simple library for keyword extraction
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214087
------- Additional Comments From mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-01-19 08:47 EST ------- ( ping? Again I think this bug can be closed... )
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: libextractor -- Simple library for keyword extraction
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214087
johan-fedora@deds.nl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
------- Additional Comments From johan-fedora@deds.nl 2007-01-20 12:24 EST ------- Closing this bug as NEXTRELEASE
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=214087
Jeff Sheltren sheltren@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |sheltren@fedoraproject.org Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #17 from Jeff Sheltren sheltren@fedoraproject.org 2009-05-28 17:03:12 EDT --- Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: libextractor New Branches: EL-4 EL-5 Owners: sheltren
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=214087
Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
--- Comment #18 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2009-05-29 11:38:15 EDT --- I'm going to go ahead and branch this as I've seen statements elsewhere that Enrico doesn't wish to be involved with EPEL, but that he's OK with someone branches his packages for EPEL as long as he's not bothered by the process. If that is not the case, I sincerely apologize.
CVS done.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org