Hi Tim, Thank you a lot for your fast response and detailed answer. It is great.
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 3:40 PM, Tim Niemueller tim@niemueller.de wrote:
... Great! I've compiled the package and got some errors:
- Unpackaged file /usr/bin/rcssmonitor3D-lite, after adding this to the
%files section I could build it.
Oh, Thanks! Since I don't have freeglut-devel installed, this file wasn't produced on my system. This file isn't useful now and I'll remove it in the %install section.
- The devel packages triggers rpmlint warnings which have to be fixed:
# rpmlint rcssserver3d-devel-0.5.9-1.fc9.x86_64.rpm rcssserver3d-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation ... /usr/lib64/rcssserver3d/libtinyxml.so libtinyxml.so.0.0.0 rcssserver3d-devel.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink ... rcssserver3d-devel.x86_64: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
Would you please help me a little: 1. There are some documentation for developers, but since they're a little big, I prefer to package them in a separate package. (They will double the package size). However there are some HTML pages which I can put here as documentation (I wanted to put them in the doc package). Is it necessary to have some doc files?!
2. What should I do with dangling-relative-symlink warning? The symlinks are valid, but the targets are in the main package. I don't know what should I do to prevent these warnings :( What can I do?
3. I should go home and check it again, but I think there are only some symlinks in /usr/lib. What's the problem? I don't know what else should be in this directory as other files should be in the main package.
You should consider splitting the patch in one GCC4.3 and one rpath patch
You are a rcssserver3d committer, right? So why not commit the fixes
and build a package from SVN?
- The patches seem to contain changes besides fixing rpath and GCC 4.3,
are these changes necessary? Should be a separate patch then.
In fact, I first committed these change to rcssserver3d's CVS and then created the patches using that. This is why all of the patches are in a single file. Yes, I personally prefer to create a package from CVS, but since one of the review requirement was to compare the package's sources MD5 with upstream release, I thought that I can't build a package from CVS. What should I include in my review request if I build a package from the CVS code?
- The explicit requires on the libraries shouldn't be necessary,
rpmbuild should be able to figure them out automatically
I was forced to add them for SUSE Build Service. Is there any need to remove them?
- What do you mean by comment 4, the "included some so files". What are
these .so files? If these libraries are part of rcssserver3d they should be added! I don't really understand what you mean I think.
Sorry for this ambiguity. It is stated in Fedora packaging guidelines that when a package includes versioned .so files, the .so symlinks must go in the -devel package. But I can't do that since the server's binary looks for these .so files. This is why only a few of .so files are in the -devel package.
I haven't done any runtime tests.
At least, they work on my system.
Thanks again, Hedayat
Jeff, can I do the review and you sponsor him or do you need to do the review then as well (I can't sponsor).
Tim
-- Tim Niemueller tim@niemueller.de www.niemueller.de ================================================================= Imagination is more important than knowledge. (Albert Einstein)
Fedora-robotics-list mailing list Fedora-robotics-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-robotics-list