[Bug 435015] Review Request: libGPP4 - LGPL CCP4 library
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=435015 --- Comment #15 from Tim Fenn [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-25 19:58:41 EDT --- (In reply to comment #10) By the way rebuild fails on ppc64: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=901509 Patched and fixed: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=903353 I also changed the naming to gpp4 and gpp4-devel, I'll do the same with: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435016 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435017 new spec: http://www.stanford.edu/~fenn/packs/gpp4.spec updated srpm: http://www.stanford.edu/~fenn/packs/gpp4-1.0.4-9.f8.src.rpm -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 435015] Review Request: libGPP4 - LGPL CCP4 library
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=435015 Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Comment #10 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-24 13:58:35 EDT --- Umm.. I cannot guess why you want to name binary rpm names as libgpp4 and libgpp4-devel. Simply gpp4 and gpp4-devel is better. Debian seems to name binary debs providing system wide libraries as libX (like libpango1.0-0) while Fedora simply names binary rpms using source tarball name as much as possible (like pango) (For me I maintain oniguruma while debian uses libonig as binary deb names...) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#General_Naming By the way rebuild fails on ppc64: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=901509 Now that I am sponsoring you, you can try to rebuild arbitrary srpms on koji by $ koji build --scratch target srpm_you_want_to_try where target can be dist-f11, dist-f10, dist-f9-updates-candidate or dist-f8-updates-candidate. If the build is successful, the rebuilt rpms and some logs are put for one week or so under: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/scratch/your_FAS_name/task_task_id -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 435015] Review Request: libGPP4 - LGPL CCP4 library
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=435015 --- Comment #12 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-24 14:15:24 EDT --- (In reply to comment #11) (In reply to comment #10) Umm.. I cannot guess why you want to name binary rpm names as libgpp4 and libgpp4-devel. Simply gpp4 and gpp4-devel is better. He's done that for mmdb as well; I had thought that eventually I would understand the reason for it but I haven't figured it out yet. I guess Tim will reply in a few days. -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 435015] Review Request: libGPP4 - LGPL CCP4 library
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=435015 --- Comment #11 from Jason Tibbitts [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-24 14:04:07 EDT --- (In reply to comment #10) Umm.. I cannot guess why you want to name binary rpm names as libgpp4 and libgpp4-devel. Simply gpp4 and gpp4-devel is better. He's done that for mmdb as well; I had thought that eventually I would understand the reason for it but I haven't figured it out yet. -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 435015] Review Request: libGPP4 - LGPL CCP4 library
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=435015 --- Comment #13 from Tim Fenn [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-24 16:28:18 EDT --- (In reply to comment #10) Umm.. I cannot guess why you want to name binary rpm names as libgpp4 and libgpp4-devel. Simply gpp4 and gpp4-devel is better. I'd be happy to rename it gpp4 and gpp4-devel (as I originally packaged it), but see comments 4-8 above - I'm a bit confused as to what is best here. By the way rebuild fails on ppc64: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=901509 Now that I am sponsoring you, you can try to rebuild arbitrary srpms on koji by $ koji build --scratch target srpm_you_want_to_try where target can be dist-f11, dist-f10, dist-f9-updates-candidate or dist-f8-updates-candidate. If the build is successful, the rebuilt rpms and some logs are put for one week or so under: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/scratch/your_FAS_name/task_task_id Many thanks for the tip, Mamoru. -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 435015] Review Request: libGPP4 - LGPL CCP4 library
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=435015 --- Comment #14 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-24 22:48:45 EDT --- (In reply to comment #13) (In reply to comment #10) Umm.. I cannot guess why you want to name binary rpm names as libgpp4 and libgpp4-devel. Simply gpp4 and gpp4-devel is better. I'd be happy to rename it gpp4 and gpp4-devel (as I originally packaged it), but see comments 4-8 above - I'm a bit confused as to what is best here. Both Ralf and Jason were saying that you seemed to have some reason you want to name the binary rpm as libgpp4. However as I said on Fedora it is preferable to use tarball name for srpm/binary rpms as much as possible. And as you say you are happy with naming binary rpms as gpp4/gpp4-devel please just use these names. -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 435015] Review Request: libGPP4 - LGPL CCP4 library
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=435015 Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 | --- Comment #9 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-23 14:23:56 EDT --- (Removing NEEDSPONSOR: bug 462250) -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 435015] Review Request: libGPP4 - LGPL CCP4 library
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=435015 Itamar Reis Peixoto [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] Alias||libGPP4 -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 435015] Review Request: libGPP4 - LGPL CCP4 library
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=435015 Jason Tibbitts [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 435015] Review Request: libGPP4 - LGPL CCP4 library
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: libGPP4 - LGPL CCP4 library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435015 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-09 17:36 EST --- (In reply to comment #7) I'm wondering if it wouldn't just be simpler to call the package libgpp4 and save yourself the trouble. As it is, get things like this nice long %description which doesn't actually make it into any of the packages. I agree - I'll try to get this change made upstream, along with the others I've gathered here. Plenty of rpmlint spew worth looking at: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/libgpp4-devel-1.0.4/doc/latex/csym_f_page.tex doxygen creates this; I'm not sure if it's worth converting or if it even matters. Not sure what the best course of action is here - could just have doxygen spit out the html docs... There are several complaints about the contents of the test directory being packaged as documentation, which I think is particularly ill-advised. Why aren't the tests just called at build time in a %check section? For now I've removed the test directory from the -devel package, and I'll make some suggestions upstream to move the test folder to TESTS in automake. updated spec: http://www.stanford.edu/~fenn/packs/gpp4.spec updated srpm: http://www.stanford.edu/~fenn/packs/gpp4-1.0.4-8.f8.src.rpm -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 435015] Review Request: libGPP4 - LGPL CCP4 library
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: libGPP4 - LGPL CCP4 library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435015 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-06 15:12 EST --- I'm wondering if it wouldn't just be simpler to call the package libgpp4 and save yourself the trouble. As it is, get things like this nice long %description which doesn't actually make it into any of the packages. Plenty of rpmlint spew worth looking at: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/libgpp4-devel-1.0.4/doc/latex/csym_f_page.tex doxygen creates this; I'm not sure if it's worth converting or if it even matters. There are several complaints about the contents of the test directory being packaged as documentation, which I think is particularly ill-advised. Why aren't the tests just called at build time in a %check section? W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/libgpp4-devel-1.0.4/test/load_syminfo W: doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/libgpp4-devel-1.0.4/test/.libs/load_syminfo rtld(GNU_HASH) W: doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/libgpp4-devel-1.0.4/test/.libs/load_syminfo libc.so.6()(64bit) W: doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/libgpp4-devel-1.0.4/test/.libs/load_syminfo libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) W: doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/libgpp4-devel-1.0.4/test/.libs/load_syminfo libm.so.6()(64bit) W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/libgpp4-devel-1.0.4/test/.libs W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/libgpp4-devel-1.0.4/test/.deps E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share /usr/share/doc/libgpp4-devel-1.0.4/test/load_syminfo.o E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share /usr/share/doc/libgpp4-devel-1.0.4/test/.libs/load_syminfo -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 435015] Review Request: libGPP4 - LGPL CCP4 library
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: libGPP4 - LGPL CCP4 library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435015 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-29 23:41 EST --- A few minor edits to address: library-without-ldconfig-postin library-without-ldconfig-postun new spec: http://www.stanford.edu/~fenn/packs/gpp4.spec new srpm: http://www.stanford.edu/~fenn/packs/gpp4-1.0.4-7.f8.src.rpm -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 435015] Review Request: libGPP4 - LGPL CCP4 library
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: libGPP4 - LGPL CCP4 library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435015
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-28 02:09 EST ---
This package suffers from similar issues as mmdb and ssm.
Additional problem:
This package's naming is inconsistent and likely doesn't work.
The src.rpm uses gpp4, the binary packages are called gpp4 and gpp4-devel,
gpp4-devel however Requires: libgpp4 = %{version}-%{release}. This doesn't
work.
If you want to call the binary packages libgpp4 rsp. libgpp4-devel (Which,
as far as I understand, seems to be what you intend), you'll have to use rpm's
-n pkg-name construct in %files, %description and %package.
--
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.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 435015] Review Request: libGPP4 - LGPL CCP4 library
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: libGPP4 - LGPL CCP4 library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435015
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-28 21:41 EST ---
(In reply to comment #4)
This package suffers from similar issues as mmdb and ssm.
Comments to ssm/mmdb propogated here.
Additional problem:
This package's naming is inconsistent and likely doesn't work.
The src.rpm uses gpp4, the binary packages are called gpp4 and
gpp4-devel,
gpp4-devel however Requires: libgpp4 = %{version}-%{release}. This doesn't
work.
If you want to call the binary packages libgpp4 rsp. libgpp4-devel (Which,
as far as I understand, seems to be what you intend), you'll have to use rpm's
-n pkg-name construct in %files, %description and %package.
Fixed (also done with ssm/mmdb).
new spec: http://www.stanford.edu/~fenn/packs/gpp4.spec
new srpm: http://www.stanford.edu/~fenn/packs/gpp4-1.0.4-6.f8.src.rpm
--
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.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 435015] Review Request: libGPP4 - LGPL CCP4 library
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: libGPP4 - LGPL CCP4 library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435015 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-27 17:18 EST --- Removed static libs. new spec: http://www.stanford.edu/~fenn/packs/gpp4.spec new srpm: http://www.stanford.edu/~fenn/packs/gpp4-1.0.4-5.f8.src.rpm -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
