[Bug 1175952] Review Request: efl - Collection of Enlightenment libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175952 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||efl-1.13.1-7.fc22 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2015-04-21 14:42:09 --- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System --- efl-1.13.1-7.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. -- 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 1175952] Review Request: efl - Collection of Enlightenment libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175952 Mamoru TASAKA changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|hobbes1...@gmail.com -- 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 1175952] Review Request: efl - Collection of Enlightenment libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175952 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System --- efl-1.13.1-7.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. -- 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 1175952] Review Request: efl - Collection of Enlightenment libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175952 --- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System --- efl-1.13.1-7.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/efl-1.13.1-7.fc22 -- 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 1175952] Review Request: efl - Collection of Enlightenment libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175952 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- 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 1175952] Review Request: efl - Collection of Enlightenment libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175952 --- Comment #25 from Patrick Uiterwijk --- 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 1175952] Review Request: efl - Collection of Enlightenment libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175952 Patrick Uiterwijk 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 1175952] Review Request: efl - Collection of Enlightenment libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175952 Tom "spot" Callaway changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #24 from Tom "spot" Callaway --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: efl Short Description: Collection of Enlightenment libraries Upstream URL: http://enlightenment.org/ Owners: spot Branches: f20 f21 f22 InitialCC: -- 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 1175952] Review Request: efl - Collection of Enlightenment libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175952 --- Comment #23 from Tom "spot" Callaway --- Thanks for the review, Richard. :) -- 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 1175952] Review Request: efl - Collection of Enlightenment libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175952 --- Comment #21 from Richard Shaw --- (In reply to Tom "spot" Callaway from comment #20) > Yeaaah. I'm not going to untangle efl for that. If someone wants to do it, > I'd consider helping push that patch upstream. Sounds good to me, but sometimes it's as easy as adding -Wl,--as-needed to the linker commands via C/CXXFLAGS. Not a blocker though. -- 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 1175952] Review Request: efl - Collection of Enlightenment libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175952
Richard Shaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #22 from Richard Shaw ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like) LGPL
(v2.1 or later)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "zlib/libpng", "ISC", "GPL (v2 or
later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "BSD (2 clause)", "LGPL (v2.1 or
later)", "*No copyright* Public domain", "*No copyright* LGPL (v2.1 or
later)". 1637 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck
in /home/build/fedora-review/1175952-efl/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Package uses hardened build flags if required to.
Note: suid files: eeze_scanner
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: update-mime-database is invoked in %post and %postun if package stores
mime configuration in /usr/share/mime/packages.
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[-]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest versio
[Bug 1175952] Review Request: efl - Collection of Enlightenment libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175952 --- Comment #20 from Tom "spot" Callaway --- Yeaaah. I'm not going to untangle efl for that. If someone wants to do it, I'd consider helping push that patch upstream. I did fix the dbus dir ownership in -7. New SRPM: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/efl-1.13.1-7.fc22.src.rpm New SPEC: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/efl.spec -- 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 1175952] Review Request: efl - Collection of Enlightenment libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175952 --- Comment #19 from Richard Shaw --- (In reply to Tom "spot" Callaway from comment #17) > 1) efl definitely shouldn't own /usr/share/dbus-1 or > /usr/share/dbus-1/services. :) I think this could be silenced by "Requires: dbus" but like "hicolor-icon-theme" for packages that install icons to /usr/share/icons/hicolor, I'm not sure it SHOULD be required Looking at the guidelines it would appear elf should one those directories WITH dbus (multi-owner): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#The_directory_is_owned_by_a_package_which_is_not_required_for_your_package_to_function -- 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 1175952] Review Request: efl - Collection of Enlightenment libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175952 --- Comment #18 from Richard Shaw --- Created attachment 1009195 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1009195&action=edit rpmlint output of installed packages Meant to do this earlier but was distracted by $DAYJOB. -- 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 1175952] Review Request: efl - Collection of Enlightenment libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175952 --- Comment #17 from Tom "spot" Callaway --- 1) efl definitely shouldn't own /usr/share/dbus-1 or /usr/share/dbus-1/services. :) 2) I'm not sure how to see those errors, in order to fix them. Maybe attach it here as a txt file and i'll look? -- 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 1175952] Review Request: efl - Collection of Enlightenment libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175952 Richard Shaw changed: What|Removed |Added Docs Contact||hobbes1...@gmail.com --- Comment #16 from Richard Shaw --- Ok, I'm pretty much done with the review. Last couple of questions: 1. Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/dbus-1, /usr/share/dbus-1/services 2. There are 523 occurances of unused-direct-shlib-dependency on the installed package so I won't paste it all here, but is there a easy way to fix? -- 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 1175952] Review Request: efl - Collection of Enlightenment libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175952 --- Comment #15 from Tom "spot" Callaway --- Yes, the setuid perms are intentional and intended. The weird python files are gdb helpers, we do not need BR: python here, nor do we need ldconfig on them. COPYING.BSD is in the rpm: - Added the missing mimeinfo scriptlets. - Moved COPYING to %license - Fixed provides and obsoletes (efl obsoletes a lot of packages in Fedora). New SRPM: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/efl-1.13.1-6.fc22.src.rpm New SPEC: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/efl.spec -- 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 1175952] Review Request: efl - Collection of Enlightenment libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175952
--- Comment #14 from Richard Shaw ---
One more thing (for now!)
%{!?_licensedir:%global license %%doc}
%license licenses/COPYING.BSD licenses/COPYING.GPL licenses/COPYING.LGPL
licenses/COPYING.SMALL
%doc AUTHORS COPYING COMPLIANCE NEWS README
The plain COPYING file in the root of the source should be moved to the
%license line.
--
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 1175952] Review Request: efl - Collection of Enlightenment libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175952 --- Comment #13 from Richard Shaw --- Ok, there's a problem with the cmake package in rawhide right now so I'm re-running fedora-review with f22 instead. While it's running I have some feedback: Issues: === - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines This is due to the cmake problem in rawhide, ignore for now. - Permissions on files are set properly. Note: See rpmlint output See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions - Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel This package does not BR python at all. I haven't looked through the packaged files but I have to assume that it's finding some python files? - 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 is included in %doc. Note: Cannot find COPYING.BSD in rpm(s) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text Generic: [!]: update-mime-database is invoked in %post and %postun if package stores mime configuration in /usr/share/mime/packages. Note: mimeinfo files in: efl See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#mimeinfo [ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/ethumb(ethumb), /usr/share/edje(edje-devel), /usr/lib64/ecore(ecore), /usr/lib64/evas/modules/engines(evas), /usr/lib64/efreet(efreet), /usr/include/ethumb-1(ethumb-devel), /usr/lib64/evas/modules/engines/wayland_shm(evas), /usr/include/eet-1 (eet-devel), /usr/lib64/evas/modules/engines/fb(evas), /usr/share/evas(evas), /usr/lib64/evas/cserve2(evas), /usr/include/eio-1 (eio-devel), /usr/include/ecore-1(ecore-devel), /usr/include/edje-1(edje- devel), /usr/include/eeze-1(eeze-devel), /usr/lib64/ethumb(ethumb), /usr/include/eina-1/eina(libeina-devel), /usr/lib64/emotion(emotion), /usr/include/eina-1(libeina-devel), /usr/lib64/evas/modules/engines/software_x11(evas), /usr/share/edje/include(edje-devel), /usr/include/efreet-1(efreet-devel), /usr/include/evas-1(evas-devel), /usr/lib64/edje(edje, emotion), /usr/lib64/evas/modules(evas), /usr/lib64/evas(evas), /usr/lib64/evas/modules/engines/gl_x11(evas), /usr/include/emotion-1 (emotion-devel), /usr/share/emotion(emotion), /usr/lib64/edje/modules(emotion), /usr/lib64/edje/modules/emotion(emotion), /usr/lib64/edje/utils(edje) Is this somehow causes by getting rid of all the sub-packages? Rpmlint --- Checking: efl-1.13.1-5.fc23.x86_64.rpm efl-devel-1.13.1-5.fc23.x86_64.rpm efl-1.13.1-5.fc23.src.rpm efl.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libecore_x.so.1.13.1 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 efl.x86_64: E: setuid-binary /usr/bin/eeze_scanner root 04555L I'm assuming eeze needs setuid? efl.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/eeze_scanner 04555L efl.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/eeze_scanner 04555L Needed? efl-devel.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/share/gdb/auto-load/usr/lib64/libeo.so.1.13.1-gdb.py efl-devel.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/share/gdb/auto-load/usr/lib64/libeo.so.1.13.1-gdb.py efl-devel.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/share/gdb/auto-load/usr/lib64/libeo.so.1.13.1-gdb.pyc efl-devel.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/share/gdb/auto-load/usr/lib64/libeo.so.1.13.1-gdb.pyc efl-devel.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/share/gdb/auto-load/usr/lib64/libeo.so.1.13.1-gdb.pyo efl-devel.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/share/gdb/auto-load/usr/lib64/libeo.so.1.13.1-gdb.pyo I'm assuming this is what's causing the python errors. -- 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 1175952] Review Request: efl - Collection of Enlightenment libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175952 --- Comment #12 from Tom "spot" Callaway --- Whoops. Fixed the cmake issues: New SPEC: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/efl.spec New SRPM: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/efl-1.13.1-5.fc21.src.rpm -- 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 1175952] Review Request: efl - Collection of Enlightenment libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175952 --- Comment #11 from Richard Shaw --- That is exactly what I'm seeing in the output from fedora-review: [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/cmake/EcoreCxx, /usr/lib64/cmake/Eet, /usr/lib64/cmake/Ecore, /usr/lib64/cmake/Evas, /usr/lib64/cmake/EinaCxx, /usr/lib64/cmake/EvasCxx, /usr/lib64/cmake/Eina, /usr/lib64/cmake/EetCxx [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/cmake/EcoreCxx, /usr/lib64/cmake/Evas, /usr/share/dbus-1, /usr/lib64/cmake/EvasCxx, /usr/lib64/cmake/Eet, /usr/share/dbus-1/services, /usr/lib64/cmake/Eina, /usr/lib64/cmake/EetCxx, /usr/lib64/cmake/EinaCxx, /usr/lib64/cmake/Ecore [ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/ethumb(ethumb), /usr/share/edje(edje-devel), /usr/lib64/ecore(ecore), /usr/lib64/evas/modules/engines(evas), /usr/lib64/evas/modules/engines/wayland_shm(evas), /usr/include/ethumb-1 (ethumb-devel), /usr/lib64/efreet(efreet), /usr/include/eet-1(eet-devel), /usr/lib64/evas/modules/engines/fb(evas), /usr/share/evas(evas), /usr/lib64/evas/cserve2(evas), /usr/include/eio-1(eio-devel), /usr/include/ecore-1(ecore-devel), /usr/share/edje/include(edje-devel), /usr/include/eeze-1(eeze-devel), /usr/lib64/ethumb(ethumb), /usr/include/eina-1/eina(libeina-devel), /usr/lib64/emotion(emotion), /usr/include/eina-1(libeina-devel), /usr/lib64/evas/modules/engines/software_x11(evas), /usr/include/edje-1 (edje-devel), /usr/include/efreet-1(efreet-devel), /usr/include/evas-1 (evas-devel), /usr/lib64/edje(edje, emotion), /usr/lib64/evas/modules(evas), /usr/lib64/evas/modules/engines/gl_x11(evas), /usr/lib64/evas(evas), /usr/include/emotion-1(emotion-devel), /usr/share/emotion(emotion), /usr/lib64/edje/modules(emotion), /usr/lib64/edje/modules/emotion(emotion), /usr/lib64/edje/utils(edje) -- 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 1175952] Review Request: efl - Collection of Enlightenment libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175952
--- Comment #10 from Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group)
---
$ grep cmake efl.spec
%{_libdir}/cmake/Efl/
%{_libdir}/cmake/Ecore*/*.cmake
%{_libdir}/cmake/Edje/
%{_libdir}/cmake/Eet/*.cmake
%{_libdir}/cmake/EetCxx/*.cmake
%{_libdir}/cmake/Eeze/
%{_libdir}/cmake/Efreet/
%{_libdir}/cmake/Eina*/*.cmake
%{_libdir}/cmake/Eldbus/
%{_libdir}/cmake/Elua/
%{_libdir}/cmake/Emotion/
%{_libdir}/cmake/Eo/
%{_libdir}/cmake/EoCxx/
%{_libdir}/cmake/Eolian/
%{_libdir}/cmake/EolianCxx/
%{_libdir}/cmake/Ethumb/
%{_libdir}/cmake/EthumbClient/
%{_libdir}/cmake/Evas/*.cmake
%{_libdir}/cmake/EvasCxx/*.cmake
Is there a special reason why parts of the spec file include only *.cmake
whereas other parts include the parent directory? The first bears a high risk
of creating unowned directories.
--
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 1175952] Review Request: efl - Collection of Enlightenment libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175952 Ding-Yi Chen changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dc...@redhat.com --- Comment #9 from Ding-Yi Chen --- Will it enable the wayland support? AFAIK, if we enable wayland support here, it clashed with mese-libEGL-devel when building enlightment-0.19 -- 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 1175952] Review Request: efl - Collection of Enlightenment libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175952 Richard Shaw changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||hobbes1...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- 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 1175952] Review Request: efl - Collection of Enlightenment libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175952 --- Comment #8 from Tom "spot" Callaway --- I was on the fence about doing that originally, but it makes sense. Updated spec: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/efl.spec Updated SRPM: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/efl-1.13.1-3.fc21.src.rpm Adds e_dbus/e_dbus-devel Provides/Obsoletes. -- 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 1175952] Review Request: efl - Collection of Enlightenment libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175952 --- Comment #7 from Benoît Marcelin --- e_dbus doesn't exist anymore. It has been replaced by eldbus. Your package should obsoletes it. -- 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 1175952] Review Request: efl - Collection of Enlightenment libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175952 --- Comment #6 from Tom "spot" Callaway --- Updated spec: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/efl.spec Updated SRPM: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/efl-1.13.1-2.fc21.src.rpm Koji Rawhide scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9139662 This updates to 1.13.1, drops the subpackages, fixes the FSF address issues from rpmlint, fixes compilation of drm support. -- 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 1175952] Review Request: efl - Collection of Enlightenment libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175952 --- Comment #5 from Tom "spot" Callaway --- I'm sorry. I'm just now having cycles to work on things again. I'll take the time to rework my package to kill off the subpackage model. -- 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 1175952] Review Request: efl - Collection of Enlightenment libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175952 --- Comment #4 from Benoît Marcelin --- Ping, this is getting too long. -- 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 1175952] Review Request: efl - Collection of Enlightenment libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175952 Bug 1175952 depends on bug 1164257, which changed state. Bug 1164257 Summary: Review Request: efl - Enlightenment Fundament Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1164257 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE -- 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 1175952] Review Request: efl - Collection of Enlightenment libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175952 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added CC||serein...@online.fr --- Comment #3 from Christopher Meng --- *** Bug 1164257 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- 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 1175952] Review Request: efl - Collection of Enlightenment libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175952 Michael Schwendt changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1164257 --- Comment #2 from Michael Schwendt --- Bug 1164257 - Review Request: efl - Enlightenment Fundament Library Team-work time, guys! Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1164257 [Bug 1164257] Review Request: efl - Enlightenment Fundament Library -- 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 1175952] Review Request: efl - Collection of Enlightenment libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175952 Michael Schwendt changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bugs.mich...@gmx.net --- Comment #1 from Michael Schwendt --- > To strike the balance, this efl package makes subpackages for each of these > libraries, What balance? What is the rationale? It looks like a strange decision, because of the inter-dependencies between these libs. For example: $ rpm -qpR evas-1.12.2-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm |grep ^libe libeet.so.1()(64bit) libefl.so.1()(64bit) libeina.so.1()(64bit) libeo.so.1()(64bit) libevas.so.1()(64bit) $ rpm -qpR edje-1.12.2-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm |grep ^libe libecore.so.1()(64bit) libecore_audio.so.1()(64bit) libecore_con.so.1()(64bit) libecore_evas.so.1()(64bit) libecore_file.so.1()(64bit) libecore_imf.so.1()(64bit) libecore_imf_evas.so.1()(64bit) libecore_input.so.1()(64bit) libecore_input_evas.so.1()(64bit) libedje.so.1()(64bit) libeet.so.1()(64bit) libeeze.so.1()(64bit) libefl.so.1()(64bit) libeina.so.1()(64bit) libeio.so.1()(64bit) libembryo.so.1()(64bit) libemotion.so.1()(64bit) libeo.so.1()(64bit) libephysics.so.1()(64bit) libevas.so.1()(64bit) With such heavy inter-deps it makes no sense to create subpackages. Especially the dep on libelf.so.1 will always pull in the full show via your "elf" base package and its explicit Requires. -- 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
