[Bug 432259] Review Request: speech-dispatcher - Required for speech synthesis on OLPC XO

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Sat Feb 16 07:34:48 UTC 2008


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: speech-dispatcher - Required for speech synthesis on OLPC XO


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=432259





------- Additional Comments From goyal.hemant at gmail.com  2008-02-16 02:34 EST -------
Hi,

I have updated the SPEC file to use the latest speech-dispatcher release.

The SPEC file can be accessed at :
http://www.nsitonline.in/hemant/stuff/speechd-rpm/speech-dispatcher.spec

The SRPM can be accessed at : 
http://www.nsitonline.in/hemant/stuff/speechd-rpm/speech-dispatcher-0.6.6-1.fc7.src.rpm

- Python packages are finally getting built. (However I must force --prefix to
the correct value to make this work. Otherwise the python packages get installed
in %{_prefix} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_prefix})

Thanks!
Hemant

(In reply to comment #7)
> Thanks for the input :)
> 
> > * bconf
> >   - Your usage of bconf conditional treatment is not right.
> >     Please to the following link for example.
> >     http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/*checkout*/rpms/gimp/devel/gimp.spec
> 
> I tried to use this approach for conditional build but somehow was unsuccessful.
>  If this approach is absolutely needed, I will spend more time and fix it. (At
> this moment my attempt is commented out for your reference)
> 
> > * BuildRequires
> >   - It seems dotconf is not in Fedora yet.
> >     If you want to use dotconf, you have to submit another review request
> >     for dotconf.
> 
> I am on it, thank you for letting me know about the issue.
> 
> > * Directory ownership issue
> >   - Please make it sure that all directories which are created when installing
> >     a rpm are owned by some package.
> >     For example, the directory %{_sysconfdir}/peech-dispatcher itself is
> >     not owned by any packages.
> 
> Am i supposed to set the Directory permissions to a particular value? If that is
> the case I applied the same permissions as was done for GIMP.
> 
> > * libtool .la files
> >   - must be removed.
> 
> Done. I was getting a build error, and for that reason i had to add the macro
> %define _unpackaged_files_terminate_build 0.
> 
> > * EVR (Epoch-Version-Release) specific dependency
> >   - The dependency between subpackages must be EVR (not only Version)
> >     specific.
> 
> Added, I hope it has been done correctly.
> 
> > * /sbin/ldconfig
> >   - (Usually, and actually for this package) calling 
> >     /sbin/ldconfig is not needed for -devel package.
> 
> Commented out.
> 
> > * Static archive
> >   - Packaging static archive is forbidden when providing shared
> >     libraries, please remove them.
> >     Also please check if configure accepts --disable-static option.
> 
> Removed the static libraries. The present script when run with --without
> static_libs works fine, and disables static libs.
> 
> > * Info file
> >   - Files under %_infodir are automatically marked as %doc.
> 
> I ve removed the %doc tag.
> 
> > * Changelog
> >   - Please check
> >     http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Changelogs
> >   - Especially using %date macro in your way is forbidden.
> >     In this way %date changes every time you rebuild this srpm,
> >     which changes the old changelog entry
> 
> Fixed, I am now using the date format as mentioned on the website.
> 
> >   - One %changelog must be written in one spec file.
> >     i.e. writting %changelog for every subpackage is not allowed.
> >          These %changelog's must be unified.
> 
> Done.
> 
> > > (In reply to comment #5)
> > > Also how will I distribute the init scripts since they are not part of the
> > > original package? As a patch?
> >   - You can add it as other sources like %SOURCE1.
> 
> Okay, thanks, I think it would be best to add this once you are happy with the
> present state of the SPEC file.
> 
> > 
> > ? symlink which seems modules
> >   - BTW does this package work well if symlink .so under 
> >     %_libdir/speech-dispatcher are not in main package?
> >     These type of files are usually dlopen'ed and not aimed
> >     for being used from other packages (i.e. not aimed for
> >     being in -devel package).
> 
> I have moved .so files to main package now, there was an issue of dangling
> pointers reported by rpmlint tool when the .so files were placed in the devel
> package.
> 
> > %defattr
> >   - We now recommend %defattr(-,root,root,-)
> 
> I ve applied 0755 as directory permissions, I am not absolutely clear what you
> mean by the package owning the directory.
> 
> > * %post/%postun dependency for /sbin/install-info
> >   - is missing for -doc-en, -doc-cs (please check
> >     the section "Texinfo" of
> >     http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets )
> 
> Are you referring to these?
> Requires(post): /sbin/chkconfig /sbin/install-info
> 
> Requires(preun): /sbin/service /sbin/install-info
> 
> 
> 
> >   ? By the way do you really want to create -doc-en, -doc-cs
> >     subpackages for only info files?
> 
> I ve merged them to a single documentation package at this point.
> > 
> > !
> >   Please change release number of your spec every time you modify
> >   your spec file to avoid confusion.
> 
> Sorry! I have started doing that now, and also maintaining a proper change log.
> 
> I suppose at this stage the issues that need to be resolved : 
> 
> 1]Directory ownership
> 2]BCond
> 3]Dotconf packages
> 4]init scripts - will put the patch as advised by you
> 5]python packages refuse to get installed correctly. They get installed in a
> "build" directory within BUILD and rpmbuild has no way to pick them and put them
> in a python package.
> 
> Thanks as always for being so helpful :)
> 
> Hemant



-- 
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.




More information about the package-review mailing list