[Bug 848144] Review Request: SDL2 A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848144 Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||989752 ||(Review_Request_SDL2) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=8IfdgkV5F8a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 848144] Review Request: SDL2 A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848144 Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bjoern.es...@gmail.com Resolution|NOTABUG |DUPLICATE --- Comment #14 from Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com --- Has been resubmitted by ignatenkobrain. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 989752 *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=U9ejyOX2Dza=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 848144] Review Request: SDL2 A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848144 Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|989752 | |(Review_Request_SDL2) | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=eVhPk2SI1ja=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 848144] Review Request: SDL2 A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848144 MERCIER Jonathan bioinfornat...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(bioinfornatics@gm | |ail.com)| --- Comment #12 from MERCIER Jonathan bioinfornat...@gmail.com --- sorry but finally i do not use enough SDL2 to be a good package maintener. if someone could take SDL2 package … -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=vxUC1puqf9a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 848144] Review Request: SDL2 A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848144 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Blocks||201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed||2013-06-26 19:35:01 --- Comment #13 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu --- Guess I'll close this, then. If someone else wants to submit this package, please feel free to open a new ticket. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=woPIkUk8EDa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 848144] Review Request: SDL2 A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848144 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bioinfornat...@gmail.com Flags||needinfo?(bioinfornatics@gm ||ail.com) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=7uvG872Ds1a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 848144] Review Request: SDL2 A cross-platform multimedia library
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848144
--- Comment #11 from Paulo Andrade paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com
---
Note that only a SDL2 package would not be enough.
I did some experiments with SDL_ttf built on top
of SDL2. Needs a lot of patching, and the trivial
patch would just create a SDL_ttf that conflicts
with the one based on SDL 1.2, so, needs massive
patching to call it SDL2_ttf, that is, basically
a s/SDL/SDL2/ s/sdl/sdl2/ everywhere but a few
places, e.g. need to still call the header SDL.h,
what breaks auto{conf,make} implicit rules in
configure.* and Makefile.*
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=LvzxvGcIQSa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 848144] Review Request: SDL2 A cross-platform multimedia library
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848144 --- Comment #10 from Paulo Andrade paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com --- Created attachment 681954 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=681954action=edit SDL2.spec Sample spec with my suggestions and patch in previous attachment. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=2gC7ogyT0ba=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 848144] Review Request: SDL2 A cross-platform multimedia library
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848144
Paulo Andrade paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr
||a...@gmail.com
--- Comment #9 from Paulo Andrade paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to comment #8)
I would like to see a SDL2 package as I almost finished a sample
package for http://te4.org but it needs SDL2 (the compatibility layer
for SDL 1.2 is broken in the final release).
Created attachment 672205 [details]
spec cleanup
My comments after applying this patch.
* The linked spec file is an older one. The src.rpm is much newer.
* As I've noticed lots of no results for the various checks during the
configure step, I skimmed over the spec file and fixed several minor issues.
What I did not have installed in a standard rawhide:
# fatal error: audio/audiolib.h: No such file or directory
BuildRequires: nas-devel
# fatal error: X11/extensions/scrnsaver.h: No such file or directory
BuildRequires: libXScrnSaver-devel
# fatal error: GLES/gl.h: No such file or directory
BuildRequires: mesa-libGLES-devel
# fatal error: tslib.h: No such file or directory
BuildRequires: tslib-devel
# fatal error: usb.h: No such file or directory
BuildRequires: libusb-devel
These I presume are missing (cannot fool proof test it right
now because mock is broken in rawhide #894623):
BuildRequires: alsa-lib-devel
BuildRequires: mesa-libGL-devel
BuildRequires: libXrandr-devel
BuildRequires: libXi-devel
BuildRequires: libXinerama-devel
BuildRequires: libXcursor-devel
The diff should be self-explaining.
* SDL2-devel.x86_64 will conflict with SDL2-devel.i686 due to the
sdl2-config script
I think this is common practice, just do repoquery -f
in a few /usr/bin/*-config to verify
* .pc file:
$ pkg-config sdl2 --libs
-Wl,-rpath,/usr/lib64 -lSDL2 -lpthread
It includes duplicated -lpthread options and another -lSDL2 in the .private
section:
$ grep pth /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/sdl2.pc
Libs: -L${libdir} -Wl,-rpath,${libdir} -lSDL2 -lpthread
Libs.private: -lSDL2 -lpthread -lm -ldl -lpthread
should also remove the -rpath
* Several build requirements seem to be missing. The test programs in the
test subdirectory fail to build due to that.
* If this SDL2 is rebuilt with added BuildRequires, the tests can be built,
too.
The resulting binary rpm is missing shared library dependencies. Oh, the
libs are loaded dynamically by SDL - run-time RPM dependencies will be
needed for them, too, however, probably not limited to these:
$ grep DYNA config.status
D[SDL_AUDIO_DRIVER_ALSA_DYNAMIC]= \libasound.so.2\
D[SDL_AUDIO_DRIVER_PULSEAUDIO_DYNAMIC]= \libpulse-simple.so.0\
D[SDL_VIDEO_DRIVER_X11_DYNAMIC]= \libX11.so.6\
D[SDL_VIDEO_DRIVER_X11_DYNAMIC_XEXT]= \libXext.so.6\
D[SDL_VIDEO_DRIVER_X11_DYNAMIC_XCURSOR]= \libXcursor.so.1\
D[SDL_VIDEO_DRIVER_X11_DYNAMIC_XINERAMA]= \libXinerama.so.1\
D[SDL_VIDEO_DRIVER_X11_DYNAMIC_XINPUT2]= \libXi.so.6\
D[SDL_VIDEO_DRIVER_X11_DYNAMIC_XRANDR]= \libXrandr.so.2\
D[SDL_VIDEO_DRIVER_X11_DYNAMIC_XVIDMODE]= \libXxf86vm.so.1\
These should be added as Requires, e.g.:
Requires: libasound
Requires: pulseaudio-libs
Requires: libXcursor
Requires: libXinerama
Requires: libXi
Requires: libXrandr
others should be automatically required by mesa-libGL, and a few
of the above already required by any desktop environment, but
better to have proper requires.
Extra suggestions I have:
* Optionally use only %{snapdate} in the release, that is, instead
of SDL2-2-2.20120812hg9612bcd79130 call it SDL2-2-2.20120812,
but keep metainformation in the spec about proper commit.
* Move some README* to the main package, and do not install
others. At least README and README-SDL.txt should be in the
main package:
[...]
Please distribute this file with the SDL runtime environment:
[...]
.android, .iOS, .MacOSX, .WinCE should not be installed.
* Instead of removing the .a libraries, maybe create a
-static package. Not something to encourage, but static
linking would be a way to have some package not breaking
in the near future.
(In reply to comment #3)
Upstream provides snapshots http://www.libsdl.org/tmp/.
Probably better to use the upstream snapshots also. The
oldest snapshots appear to be one year old.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=OpAzBOOAaUa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 848144] Review Request: SDL2 A cross-platform multimedia library
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848144
--- Comment #8 from Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com ---
Created attachment 672205
-- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=672205action=edit
spec cleanup
* The linked spec file is an older one. The src.rpm is much newer.
* As I've noticed lots of no results for the various checks during the
configure step, I skimmed over the spec file and fixed several minor issues.
The diff should be self-explaining.
* SDL2-devel.x86_64 will conflict with SDL2-devel.i686 due to the sdl2-config
script
* .pc file:
$ pkg-config sdl2 --libs
-Wl,-rpath,/usr/lib64 -lSDL2 -lpthread
It includes duplicated -lpthread options and another -lSDL2 in the .private
section:
$ grep pth /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/sdl2.pc
Libs: -L${libdir} -Wl,-rpath,${libdir} -lSDL2 -lpthread
Libs.private: -lSDL2 -lpthread -lm -ldl -lpthread
* Several build requirements seem to be missing. The test programs in the
test subdirectory fail to build due to that.
* If this SDL2 is rebuilt with added BuildRequires, the tests can be built,
too.
The resulting binary rpm is missing shared library dependencies. Oh, the libs
are loaded dynamically by SDL - run-time RPM dependencies will be needed for
them, too, however, probably not limited to these:
$ grep DYNA config.status
D[SDL_AUDIO_DRIVER_ALSA_DYNAMIC]= \libasound.so.2\
D[SDL_AUDIO_DRIVER_PULSEAUDIO_DYNAMIC]= \libpulse-simple.so.0\
D[SDL_VIDEO_DRIVER_X11_DYNAMIC]= \libX11.so.6\
D[SDL_VIDEO_DRIVER_X11_DYNAMIC_XEXT]= \libXext.so.6\
D[SDL_VIDEO_DRIVER_X11_DYNAMIC_XCURSOR]= \libXcursor.so.1\
D[SDL_VIDEO_DRIVER_X11_DYNAMIC_XINERAMA]= \libXinerama.so.1\
D[SDL_VIDEO_DRIVER_X11_DYNAMIC_XINPUT2]= \libXi.so.6\
D[SDL_VIDEO_DRIVER_X11_DYNAMIC_XRANDR]= \libXrandr.so.2\
D[SDL_VIDEO_DRIVER_X11_DYNAMIC_XVIDMODE]= \libXxf86vm.so.1\
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=MkDpI0aQOZa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 848144] Review Request: SDL2 A cross-platform multimedia library
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848144 Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard|NotReady| -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=m0DnIxak4qa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 848144] Review Request: SDL2 A cross-platform multimedia library
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848144 --- Comment #7 from MERCIER Jonathan bioinfornat...@gmail.com --- yes that is true i update the organization. Now i put all my pending package into http://bioinfornatics.fedorapeople.org/packages/ srpms: http://bioinfornatics.fedorapeople.org/packages/SDL2-2-2.20120812hg9612bcd79130.fc17.src.rpm spec: http://bioinfornatics.fedorapeople.org/packages/SDL2.spec -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=bCO1ZiDJvma=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 848144] Review Request: SDL2 A cross-platform multimedia library
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848144 Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Version|18 |rawhide Whiteboard||NotReady --- Comment #6 from Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com --- 404 not found for both downloads -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=eN51KiFftxa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 848144] Review Request: SDL2 A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848144 --- Comment #5 from MERCIER Jonathan bioinfornat...@gmail.com --- $ rpmlint /home/builder/rpmbuild/SRPMS/SDL2-2.0.0-3.fc17.src.rpm /home/builder/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/SDL2-2.0.0-3.fc17.x86_64.rpm /home/builder/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/SDL2-devel-2.0.0-3.fc17.x86_64.rpm /home/builder/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/SDL2-debuginfo-2.0.0-3.fc17.x86_64.rpm SDL2.src: W: spelling-error Summary(fr) multi - mufti, multiple SDL2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l fr multi - mufti, multiple SDL2.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(fr) multi - mufti, multiple SDL2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l fr multi - mufti, multiple SDL2-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sdl2-config 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings spec: http://bioinfornatics.fedorapeople.org/SDL2.spec srpms: http://bioinfornatics.fedorapeople.org/SDL2-2.0.0-3.fc17.src.rpm -- 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 848144] Review Request: SDL2 A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848144 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ppi...@redhat.com See Also||https://bugzilla.redhat.com ||/show_bug.cgi?id=767528 --- Comment #3 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com --- Upstream provides snapshots http://www.libsdl.org/tmp/. -- 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 848144] Review Request: SDL2 A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848144 --- Comment #4 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com --- *** Bug 767528 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- 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 848144] Review Request: SDL2 A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848144
Christophe Fergeau cferg...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cferg...@redhat.com
--- Comment #1 from Christophe Fergeau cferg...@redhat.com ---
Release:1.%{alphatag}%{?dist}.3
The .3 should not be here, and I'm unsure about the 1. prefix (looking at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages )
Why this specific revision (9612bcd79130)? Is it recommended by upstream? Used
by other distros? or just random?
The BuildRequires: geany and generation of the geany tags are unneeded and
don't belong there imo.
chmod 644 $(find src \( -name *.c -or -name *.h \) )
Do you get any issues if you don't change the file permissions? If yes, this
should be mentioned in the comment above, if not, I think you can tell rpm to
adjust the file permissions for you in %file
--
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 848144] Review Request: SDL2 A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=848144
--- Comment #2 from MERCIER Jonathan bioinfornat...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Release:1.%{alphatag}%{?dist}.3
The .3 should not be here, and I'm unsure about the 1. prefix (looking at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages )
I agree .3 is an artifact
Why this specific revision (9612bcd79130)? Is it recommended by upstream?
Used by other distros? or just random?
Not recommended by upstream i taken the last revision from mercurial repo. I
will work with upstream. As achlinux has already SDL2 into their repository
they are no reason to do same. In more SDL do not override SDL 1.2 .
The BuildRequires: geany and generation of the geany tags are unneeded and
don't belong there imo.
Ok it was to help developer.
chmod 644 $(find src \( -name *.c -or -name *.h \) )
Do you get any issues if you don't change the file permissions? If yes, this
should be mentioned in the comment above, if not, I think you can tell rpm
to adjust the file permissions for you in %file
debuginfo take this sources files then %attr is not useful here
spec: http://bioinfornatics.fedorapeople.org/SDL2.spec
srpms:
http://bioinfornatics.fedorapeople.org/SDL2-2-2.20120812hg9612bcd79130.fc17.src.rpm
thanks
--
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
