[Bug 541535] Review Request: raul - Realtime Audio Utility 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=541535 --- Comment #6 from Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com 2009-12-26 07:13:00 EDT --- Something is wrong with the new -debuginfo package now. It's missing the sources. -- 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 541535] Review Request: raul - Realtime Audio Utility 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=541535 --- Comment #4 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2009-12-08 05:52:19 EDT --- I asked these questions to the author via email. Let us wait, then I will proceed with what comes out. -- 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 541535] Review Request: raul - Realtime Audio Utility 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=541535 --- Comment #5 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2009-12-08 23:51:44 EDT --- The author replied and actually released a new version today, with the excessive linkage removed. So here we go: Spec URL: http://oget.fedorapeople.org/review/raul.spec SRPM URL: http://oget.fedorapeople.org/review/raul-0.6.0-1.fc12.src.rpm ChangeLog - 0.6.0-1 - Update to 0.6.0. Build system uses waf now. - Drop upstreamed gcc44 patch - Removed irrelevant license comment - Change LD_PRELOAD to LD_LIBRARY_PATH in %%check - Exclude the headers that require redlandmm -- 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 541535] Review Request: raul - Realtime Audio Utility 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=541535
Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mschwe...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com 2009-12-05 09:29:03
EDT ---
rpmlint is silent.
Okay, lemme add some noise then. ;)
# There are some MIT files but the effective license is GPLv2+
License: GPLv2+
The comment is confusing. What files do you refer to?
In case any source files applied a license other than GPLv2+, the guidelines
would want you to make that clear.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Mixed_Source_Licensing_Scenario
All of the source files contain a GPLv2+ header, though. Only some autotools'
scripts/files contain other headers, but we don't give them special treatment
with regard to the licensing guidelines.
raul-gcc44.patch
...
+#include stdio.h
In C++ the proper header is cstdio though.
%check
pushd tests
export LD_PRELOAD=../src/.libs/lib%{name}.so
IMO, better would be this set-up:
export LD_LIBRARY_PATH=${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_libdir}
rpm -i /home/qa/tmp/rpm/RPMS/raul-devel-0.5.1-1.fc12.i686.rpm \
/home/qa/tmp/rpm/RPMS/raul-0.5.1-1.fc12.i686.rpm
error: Failed dependencies:
liblo-devel is needed by raul-devel-0.5.1-1.fc12.i686
Uh, it requires another -devel package that wasn't needed for building it.
$ rpm -qR raul-devel|grep devel
boost-devel
glib2-devel
jack-audio-connection-kit-devel
liblo-devel
$ pkg-config --cflags raul
-pthread -I/usr/include/glibmm-2.4 -I/usr/lib/glibmm-2.4/include
-I/usr/include/sigc++-2.0 -I/usr/lib/sigc++-2.0/include
-I/usr/include/glib-2.0 -I/usr/lib/glib-2.0/include
$ pkg-config --libs raul
-pthread -lraul -lglibmm-2.4 -lgobject-2.0 -lsigc-2.0 -lgthread-2.0
-lglib-2.0 -ljack -lpthread -lrt
Requires: glibmm24-devel libsigc++20-devel is missing in raul-devel. Only
because the pkg-config file adds them explicitly.
Upstream might add proper Requires to raul.pc.in, in particular since some of
these explicitly added libraries are not needed when building with libraul.
$ grep mm include/raul/*
AtomRDF.hpp:#include redlandmm/Node.hpp
AtomRDF.hpp:#include redlandmm/World.hpp
Command.hpp:#include raul/Semaphore.hpp
Command.hpp:#include boost/utility.hpp
Stateful.hpp:#include redlandmm/Model.hpp
$ sudo repoquery --whatprovides /usr/include\*/redlandmm/Node.hpp
$
Not in Fedora 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 541535] Review Request: raul - Realtime Audio Utility 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=541535
--- Comment #2 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2009-12-05
16:09:21 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #1)
rpmlint is silent.
Okay, lemme add some noise then. ;)
Thanks for getting your hands dirty :)
# There are some MIT files but the effective license is GPLv2+
License:GPLv2+
The comment is confusing. What files do you refer to?
In case any source files applied a license other than GPLv2+, the guidelines
would want you to make that clear.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Mixed_Source_Licensing_Scenario
All of the source files contain a GPLv2+ header, though. Only some autotools'
scripts/files contain other headers, but we don't give them special treatment
with regard to the licensing guidelines.
Ah, I probably was going thru the source files and saw the MIT headers in the
autotools files and didn't pay attention what they actually are for. I'll
remove the comment.
raul-gcc44.patch
...
+#include stdio.h
In C++ the proper header is cstdio though.
Yes. But it's not too big of a deal (Is it?). And upstream accepted and applied
my stdio.h patch to the trunk.
%check
pushd tests
export LD_PRELOAD=../src/.libs/lib%{name}.so
IMO, better would be this set-up:
export LD_LIBRARY_PATH=${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_libdir}
Could you tell me what makes this better? Don't they serve the same purpose in
this case? Does LD_PRELOAD have a potential of hiding errors or breaking thing?
rpm -i /home/qa/tmp/rpm/RPMS/raul-devel-0.5.1-1.fc12.i686.rpm \
/home/qa/tmp/rpm/RPMS/raul-0.5.1-1.fc12.i686.rpm
error: Failed dependencies:
liblo-devel is needed by raul-devel-0.5.1-1.fc12.i686
Uh, it requires another -devel package that wasn't needed for building it.
A Requires in the devel package does not necessarily mean that you need that
package during building. Just check the header files that go into the devel
package and you will understand what I mean :). You will see that some #include
headers from liblo and some #include headers from:
boost-devel
glib2-devel
jack-audio-connection-kit-devel
liblo-devel
So these requirements are for development purposes.
$ pkg-config --cflags raul
-pthread -I/usr/include/glibmm-2.4 -I/usr/lib/glibmm-2.4/include
-I/usr/include/sigc++-2.0 -I/usr/lib/sigc++-2.0/include
-I/usr/include/glib-2.0 -I/usr/lib/glib-2.0/include
$ pkg-config --libs raul
-pthread -lraul -lglibmm-2.4 -lgobject-2.0 -lsigc-2.0 -lgthread-2.0
-lglib-2.0 -ljack -lpthread -lrt
Requires: glibmm24-devel libsigc++20-devel is missing in raul-devel. Only
because the pkg-config file adds them explicitly.
Upstream might add proper Requires to raul.pc.in, in particular since some
of
these explicitly added libraries are not needed when building with libraul.
Should I remove these entries from the .pc file:
-lglibmm-2.4 -lgobject-2.0 -lsigc-2.0 lgthread-2.0 -lglib-2.0 -ljack
I don't think they are really required.
$ grep mm include/raul/*
AtomRDF.hpp:#include redlandmm/Node.hpp
AtomRDF.hpp:#include redlandmm/World.hpp
Command.hpp:#include raul/Semaphore.hpp
Command.hpp:#include boost/utility.hpp
Stateful.hpp:#include redlandmm/Model.hpp
$ sudo repoquery --whatprovides /usr/include\*/redlandmm/Node.hpp
$
Not in Fedora yet.
Exactly. That's why I didn't add BR: redlandmm-devel (or whatever it is called)
to the Requires of the devel package. I will add it once this package is in
Fedora. For the time being this won't break anything. I don't know of any
software that uses redlandmm feature of raul. In particular, redlandmm needs
redland = 1.0.8 or higher. But even in rawhide we still have 1.0.7. I talked
to the maintainer and got the response that it is being worked on. I guess the
progress is a little slow.
--
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 541535] Review Request: raul - Realtime Audio Utility 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=541535 --- Comment #3 from Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com 2009-12-05 19:36:52 EDT --- LD_LIBRARY_PATH vs. LD_PRELOAD The benefit would be that you would test run-time linking of the test-suite programs with the actual shared libs installed into the package buildroot. It's much more a real-world test scenario than forcefully making available a .so that won't even be put into the run-time library package. A Requires in the devel package does not necessarily mean that you need that package during building. I found it surprising enough to mention it. :-) Upstream could include a check for liblo in its build framework. Afterall, it's a requirement of the API. Should I remove these entries from the .pc file: Raises the question whether you would like the increased maintenance requirements? [pkg-config is kind of unflexible in that area. For any inter-dependency on other .pc files that is added in a .pc file's Requires line, it propagates and accumulates the cflags and ldflags. Good for the cflags (to find headers in customised trees outside standard search paths). However, when linking shared-only, we don't need to relink against shared libs a base library is linked with already (as opposed to static linkage). So, as an affect, shared library ldflags pile up even if an API doesn't depend on any of the libs.] And in this case the author even specified all those cflags and ldflags manually instead of using dependencies. I don't know of any software that uses redlandmm feature of raul. The cleaner work-around would be to %exclude those headers then and effectively disable that part of the API that could not be used. We can't ship an API that is defunctional because of missing headers. -- 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
