[Bug 1016809] Review Request: rodent - Advanced user file manager for Linux/BSD systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016809 Antonio Trande changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anto.tra...@gmail.com Depends On||1016807 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016807 [Bug 1016807] Review Request: tubo - Library to thread process std-in/std-err/std-out from fork() child -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1016809] Review Request: rodent - Advanced user file manager for Linux/BSD systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016809 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cicku...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Christopher Meng --- CCing cuz I'm using it now.(Sorry I won't review this package, others please go ahead.) Some notes: 1. I'm not sure if we can put .so into -devel subpkg if possible(but it would be ridiculous as this is a file manager)? 2. Do you think it's useful to add explicit version requires? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1016809] Review Request: rodent - Advanced user file manager for Linux/BSD systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016809 Antonio Trande changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1018568 --- Comment #2 from Antonio Trande --- Spec URL: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/Rodent/rodent.spec SRPM URL: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/Rodent/rodent-5.1.3-1.fc19.src.rpm Update to 5.1.3 . In this release all primary libraries (librfm) are split off into their own package. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018568 [Bug 1018568] Review Request: librfm - Rodent file manager primary library functionality -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1016809] Review Request: rodent - Advanced user file manager for Linux/BSD systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016809 --- Comment #3 from Antonio Trande --- Spec URL: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/Rodent/rodent.spec SRPM URL: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/Rodent/rodent-5.1.3-2.fc19.src.rpm BuildRequires/Requires reduction. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1016809] Review Request: rodent - Advanced user file manager for Linux/BSD systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016809 Bug 1016809 depends on bug 1016807, which changed state. Bug 1016807 Summary: Review Request: tubo - Library to thread process std-in/std-err/std-out from fork() child https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016807 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1016809] Review Request: rodent - Advanced user file manager for Linux/BSD systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016809 Mario Blättermann changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co ||m Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #4 from Mario Blättermann --- Taking this for a full review. I'll continue here once librfm is built and pushed to Rawhide. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1016809] Review Request: rodent - Advanced user file manager for Linux/BSD systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016809 Antonio Trande changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard||NotReady --- Comment #5 from Antonio Trande --- (In reply to Mario Blättermann from comment #4) > Taking this for a full review. I'll continue here once librfm is built and > pushed to Rawhide. 'librfm' is already built in rawhide. Rodent compilation now fails because of recent 'libtubo' changes; a new release will be public in few days. Thank you , Mario. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1016809] Review Request: rodent - Advanced user file manager for Linux/BSD systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016809 --- Comment #6 from Mario Blättermann --- Any news here? Version 5.0.14 of libtubo has been released a few days ago, maybe it solves the compiling problems. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1016809] Review Request: rodent - Advanced user file manager for Linux/BSD systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016809 Antonio Trande changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard|NotReady| --- Comment #7 from Antonio Trande --- (In reply to Mario Blättermann from comment #6) > Any news here? Version 5.0.14 of libtubo has been released a few days ago, > maybe it solves the compiling problems. I'm sorry for this delayed reply. Rodent is ready: - Update to 5.2.0 - Removed --enable-libzip option - Summary/Description changed - URL tag chaged SRPM URL: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/Rodent/rodent-5.2.0-1.fc20.src.rpm Spec URL: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/Rodent/rodent.spec Koji build in rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6342604 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1016809] Review Request: rodent - Advanced user file manager for Linux/BSD systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016809 --- Comment #8 from Mario Blättermann --- $ rpmlint -i -v * rodent.src: I: checking rodent.src: I: checking-url http://xffm.foo-projects.org/ (timeout 10 seconds) rodent.src: W: strange-permission rodent-5.2.0.tar.bz2 0600L A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions. Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions. rodent.src:2: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 2) The specfile mixes use of spaces and tabs for indentation, which is a cosmetic annoyance. Use either spaces or tabs for indentation, not both. rodent.src: I: checking-url http://sourceforge.net/projects/xffm/files/rodent/rodent-5.2.0.tar.bz2 (timeout 10 seconds) rodent.armv7hl: I: checking rodent.armv7hl: I: checking-url http://xffm.foo-projects.org/ (timeout 10 seconds) rodent.armv7hl: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rodent-sshfs Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. rodent.armv7hl: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rodent-workgroup Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. rodent.armv7hl: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rodent-nfs Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. rodent.armv7hl: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rodent-fuse Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. rodent.armv7hl: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rodent-forked Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. rodent.armv7hl: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rodent-fstab Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. rodent.armv7hl: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rodent-obex Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. rodent.armv7hl: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rodent-ps Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. rodent.armv7hl: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rodent-ecryptfs Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. rodent.armv7hl: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rodent-cifs Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. rodent.armv7hl: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rodent-desk Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. rodent.armv7hl: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rodent-ftp Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. rodent.armv7hl: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rodent-getpass Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. rodent.armv7hl: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rodent-smb Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. rodent.armv7hl: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rodent-dotdesktop Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. rodent.armv7hl: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rodent-shares Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. rodent.i686: I: checking rodent.i686: I: checking-url http://xffm.foo-projects.org/ (timeout 10 seconds) rodent.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rodent-sshfs Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. rodent.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rodent-workgroup Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. rodent.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rodent-nfs Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. rodent.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rodent-fuse Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. rodent.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rodent-forked Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. rodent.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rodent-fstab Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. rodent.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rodent-obex Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. rodent.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rodent-ps Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. rodent.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rodent-ecryptfs Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. rodent.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rodent-cifs Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. rodent.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rodent-desk Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. rodent.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rodent-ftp Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. rodent.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rodent-getpass Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. rodent.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rodent-smb Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. rodent.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rodent-dotdesktop Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. rodent.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rodent-s
[Bug 1016809] Review Request: rodent - Advanced user file manager for Linux/BSD systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016809 --- Comment #9 from Antonio Trande --- > Only the mixed spaces and tabs issue has to be fixed. Spec URL: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/Rodent/rodent.spec SRPM URL: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/Rodent/rodent-5.2.0-1.fc20.src.rpm Since they are minor warnings, I left the same release number intentionally. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1016809] Review Request: rodent - Advanced user file manager for Linux/BSD systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016809
Mario Blättermann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #10 from Mario Blättermann ---
OK, looks fine now.
-
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
-
[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
GPLv3+
[+] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it
is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be
specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to
deal with this.
$ sha256sum *
8281498cd5d9666ea30c017dc2c62884e3422075e406d0c29a21f4f46441c663
rodent-5.2.0.tar.bz2
8281498cd5d9666ea30c017dc2c62884e3422075e406d0c29a21f4f46441c663
rodent-5.2.0.tar.bz2.orig
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
[+] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[.] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific
situations)
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not
restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity).
[+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must
run properly if it is not present.
[.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[+] MUST: Development files must be in a -devel package.
[+] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} =
%{version}-%{release}
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.
[.] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need
a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanatio
[Bug 1016809] Review Request: rodent - Advanced user file manager for Linux/BSD systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016809 --- Comment #11 from Antonio Trande --- Thank you Mario. Since Rodent and the required package librfm depend by dbh >= 5.0, I'll do a SCM Request when Fedora 21 will leave the rawhide status. In the meantime, Rodent/librfm/dbh are available and updated for Fedora 20 in the Copr project at this address http://copr-fe.cloud.fedoraproject.org/coprs/sagitter/Rodent-FM/. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1016809] Review Request: rodent - Advanced user file manager for Linux/BSD systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016809 --- Comment #12 from Mario Blättermann --- (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #11) > Since Rodent and the required package librfm depend by dbh >= 5.0, I'll do a > SCM Request when Fedora 21 will leave the rawhide status. > Not needed to wait. Just do the SCM request without requesting branches. This way only the Rawhide part will be created. After branching f21 (which will happen soon) the appropriate branch will be created automatically. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1016809] Review Request: rodent - Advanced user file manager for Linux/BSD systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016809 Antonio Trande changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #14 from Antonio Trande --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rodent Short Description: Advanced user file manager for Linux/BSD systems Owners: sagitter Branches: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1016809] Review Request: rodent - Advanced user file manager for Linux/BSD systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016809 --- Comment #13 from Antonio Trande --- (In reply to Mario Blättermann from comment #12) > (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #11) > > Since Rodent and the required package librfm depend by dbh >= 5.0, I'll do a > > SCM Request when Fedora 21 will leave the rawhide status. > > > Not needed to wait. Just do the SCM request without requesting branches. > This way only the Rawhide part will be created. After branching f21 (which > will happen soon) the appropriate branch will be created automatically. That's great news for me! Thanks again. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1016809] Review Request: rodent - Advanced user file manager for Linux/BSD systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016809 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1016809] Review Request: rodent - Advanced user file manager for Linux/BSD systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016809 --- Comment #15 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1016809] Review Request: rodent - Advanced user file manager for Linux/BSD systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016809 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2014-01-07 04:22:49 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1016809] Review Request: rodent - Advanced user file manager for Linux/BSD systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016809 Michael Schwendt changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bugs.mich...@gmx.net --- Comment #16 from Michael Schwendt --- Caution! samba-libs from samba provides libshares.so rodent from rodent provides libshares.so required by: 2:samba-test-4.1.3-3.fc21.i686 No immediate reason to take action, because it's only an unversioned shared library name and there are likely other deps between samba-libs and samba-test, but watch out for such "Provides" in package reviews (and subsequent package upgrades). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1016809] Review Request: rodent - Advanced user file manager for Linux/BSD systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016809
--- Comment #17 from Michael Schwendt ---
Running /sbin/ldconfig in %post and %postun is also not necessary for this
package, since it doesn't store any shared libs in runtime linker's search
path.
It only stores plugins/modules in %{_libdir}/rfm/.
> %files devel
> %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/*.pc
That's a *very* unusual file. What is its purpose?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1016809] Review Request: rodent - Advanced user file manager for Linux/BSD systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016809
--- Comment #18 from Antonio Trande ---
(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #17)
> Running /sbin/ldconfig in %post and %postun is also not necessary for this
> package, since it doesn't store any shared libs in runtime linker's search
> path.
> It only stores plugins/modules in %{_libdir}/rfm/.
It's a private library directory; you're right.
>
>
> > %files devel
> > %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/*.pc
>
> That's a *very* unusual file. What is its purpose?
Why do you think it be unusual ?
It provides necessary infos for 'librfm' libraries used by Rodent. Should it
not be so ?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1016809] Review Request: rodent - Advanced user file manager for Linux/BSD systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016809 --- Comment #19 from Michael Schwendt --- At the risk of sounding like an examiner ;) how and where exactly is the file rodent.pc used? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1016809] Review Request: rodent - Advanced user file manager for Linux/BSD systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016809 --- Comment #20 from Antonio Trande --- (In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #19) > At the risk of sounding like an examiner ;) how and where exactly is the > file rodent.pc used? So I deserve a flunking because I don't know. :-P Perhaps are you suggesting me that its packaging is useless ? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1016809] Review Request: rodent - Advanced user file manager for Linux/BSD systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016809 edscott changed: What|Removed |Added CC||edscott.wilson.garcia@gmail ||.com --- Comment #21 from edscott --- Currently packaging of rodent.pc is not worthwhile. As of today, the only use it provides is to check ---when the configure script is run--- whether rodent modules are already installed to a different --prefix. When this occurs, a warning is triggered by the configure script. This helps developers avoid rodent version mixups. Thus the utility of rodent.pc is currently limited to those who are building and installing from source. In the future, rodent-diff and rodent-fgr will be split into separate packages, and these two programs do require rodent modules, although these modules will possibly be transferred to librfm. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1016809] Review Request: rodent - Advanced user file manager for Linux/BSD systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016809 --- Comment #22 from Antonio Trande --- (In reply to edscott from comment #21) > Currently packaging of rodent.pc is not worthwhile. As of today, the only > use it provides is to check ---when the configure script is run--- whether > rodent modules are already installed to a different --prefix. When this > occurs, a warning is triggered by the configure script. This helps > developers avoid rodent version mixups. > > Thus the utility of rodent.pc is currently limited to those who are building > and installing from source. In the future, rodent-diff and rodent-fgr will > be split into separate packages, and these two programs do require rodent > modules, although these modules will possibly be transferred to librfm. Hi Edscott. It's very nice to speak to you here. Thank you very much to have clarified to me this issue; I was about to contact you by a post in SourceForge. I'm modifying the Rodent package in order to exclude 'rodent.pc' packaging. Thanks also to Michael. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1016809] Review Request: rodent - Advanced user file manager for Linux/BSD systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016809
--- Comment #23 from Michael Schwendt ---
> I_PREFIX=`$PKG_CONFIG --variable prefix rodent 2>/dev/null`
Yep, there won't be any rodent.pc file in clean buildroots, such as used by
Fedora.
But primarily, the rodent.pc file is "weird", because of what it does with its
"includedir" and "Libs" lines:
> includedir=/usr/include/rfm/modules
Not even librfm installs anything into that path. In case you want
module/plugin packages to use pkgconfig to retrieve an installation path at
configure-time, consider something like
libdir=/usr/lib64
moduledir=${libdir}/rfm/modules
$ pkg-config rodent --variable=moduledir
/usr/lib64/rfm/modules
and a similar thing for plugindir. Such a query can be embedded into configure
scripts for external module/plugin packages.
> Requires: librfm
In a .pc file, this creates an inter-dependency with librfm.pc and pulls in the
--cflags and --libs for librfm. Considering that librfm has been split off and
there is no own API for rodent, that is odd.
> Libs: -L${libdir}/rfm/modules -lbcrypt -lcompletion -lcombobox
> -lproperties -lmime -lmimemagic -lmimezip -licons
And these are rodent module libs appearing on the linker options line for
unknown reasons.
Hope this makes clear why I've questioned the rodent-devel rpm for just this
file. As a last resort one could have included the file in the base rodent rpm,
even if nothing uses it at runtime. :-)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1016809] Review Request: rodent - Advanced user file manager for Linux/BSD systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016809 --- Comment #24 from edscott --- I would not include rodent.pc. Everything in it is just for testing development code and not used by any distributed code as of yet. As you may have noticed, I do not distribute the rodent-devel rpm for OpenSUSE nor the rodent-dev deb for Ubuntu for this reason. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1016809] Review Request: rodent - Advanced user file manager for Linux/BSD systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016809 Bug 1016809 depends on bug 1018568, which changed state. Bug 1018568 Summary: Review Request: librfm - Rodent file manager primary library functionality https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018568 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
