https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069257
--- Comment #37 from Fedora Update System ---
fparser-4.5.1-7.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069257
--- Comment #36 from Fedora Update System ---
fparser-4.5.1-7.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/fparser-4.5.1-7.fc20
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069257
--- Comment #35 from Till Hofmann ---
You're right.
Nevertheless, I think it is better not to add the optional parsers. Since all
the parsers basically offer the same functionality with different types, there
is no need for including them al
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069257
--- Comment #34 from Michael Schwendt ---
> I don't think it would be a good idea to build the library
> with MPFR/GMP support without adding dependencies to these libraries,
That dependency would be _automatic_, because libfparser would be l
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069257
--- Comment #33 from Till Hofmann ---
(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #32)
> Anyway, if you say MPFR/GMP is not needed, only the three headers ought to
> be dropped. Shipping internal headers is not a great idea. Eventually
> somebo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069257
--- Comment #32 from Michael Schwendt ---
What has changed is that two of the installed headers are wrong (= I copied all
the names from the topdir instead of checking that three of them should not be
installed). That's wrong, especially since
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069257
--- Comment #31 from Till Hofmann ---
(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #30)
> For example, if you wanted to add the optional gmp/mpfr features, the patch
> would need to be adjusted to compile the extra sources into the library
> *an
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069257
--- Comment #30 from Michael Schwendt ---
Hmmm... I'm not so sure anymore whether it has been a good idea to approve the
package.
The attached patch is just an example of a basic framework to get started. It
does not use all source files from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069257
--- Comment #29 from Till Hofmann ---
Thanks for the patch!
I've included the patch and updated the SPEC file, could you check it before I
update the package?
SRPM: http://thofmann.fedorapeople.org/fparser-4.5.1-6.fc20.src.rpm
SPEC: http://th
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069257
--- Comment #28 from Michael Schwendt ---
Created attachment 876324
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=876324&action=edit
basic autotools files for building libfparser
"autoreconf -f -i" to get going
--
You are receiving th
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069257
--- Comment #27 from Till Hofmann ---
(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #26)
>
> Is it because of CMake messing it up?
>
> Just "libfparser-4.5.so" as the SONAME should suffice and match the file
> name and also match Debian's libfp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069257
--- Comment #26 from Michael Schwendt ---
> /usr/lib64/libfparser-4.5.so.4.5
That's the strange one with the duplicate version again:
$ rpmsoname ~/Downloads/fparser-4.5.1-5.fc21.x86_64.rpm
/usr/lib64/libfparser-4.5.so.4.5.1libfpars
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069257
--- Comment #25 from Till Hofmann ---
(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #23)
> - Change library naming to fparser-$major-$minor.so
>
> 1) it's $major.$minor.so
> 2) it's libfparser-$major.$minor.so
>
> ;-)
Oh, thanks! I definitely
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069257
--- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System ---
fparser-4.5.1-5.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/fparser-4.5.1-5.fc20
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069257
--- Comment #23 from Michael Schwendt ---
Without the SONAME rpmbuild could not detect library dependencies in programs
linked with libfparser.
> I can't find a typo, what do you mean?
- Change library naming to fparser-$major-$minor.so
1)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069257
Till Hofmann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069257
Jon Ciesla changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
--
You are receiving this m
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069257
--- Comment #22 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
_
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069257
Till Hofmann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #21 from Till
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069257
--- Comment #20 from Till Hofmann ---
(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #19)
>
> But the new package release has removed the library SONAME. See output from
> "fedora-review -b 1069257" in case you haven't tried out that tool before
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069257
Michael Schwendt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #19 fro
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069257
--- Comment #18 from Till Hofmann ---
(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #17)
> They have chosen to patch it as well, but differently. They add an Autotools
> > based configure script and include a pkgconfig file in their -dev packag
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069257
--- Comment #17 from Michael Schwendt ---
An update:
* Debian includes an older 4.3 version of the library.
https://packages.debian.org/squeeze-backports/libfparser-4.3
* They have chosen to patch it as well, but differently. They add an A
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069257
Till Hofmann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||674008
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugz
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069257
Michael Schwendt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Blocks|177841 (
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069257
Till Hofmann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|674008 |
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.r
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069257
--- Comment #16 from Till Hofmann ---
(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #15)
> It's not a big issue. Either add the Requires or not would work. In my
> opinion, currently it would be cleaner, if no such dependencies were added.
I've
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069257
--- Comment #15 from Michael Schwendt ---
According to the FAQ both license texts need to be included if it's the LGPL
v3:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#v3HowToUpgrade
Since probably not all developers are aware of that, once a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069257
--- Comment #14 from Till Hofmann ---
(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #13)
>
> > MPFR and GMP are not necessary but provide extra features, so I'm not
> > sure if I should include them as requirement?
>
> As a rule of thumb for -
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069257
--- Comment #13 from Michael Schwendt ---
> I'm not sure why upstream includes both license files,
> but the headers reference both, too.
Asking upstream for clarification would be an idea (since LGPL is less
restrictive than GPL):
https:/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069257
--- Comment #12 from Till Hofmann ---
Now on fedorapeople.org:
SRPM: http://thofmann.fedorapeople.org/fparser-4.5.1-2.fc20.src.rpm
SPEC: http://thofmann.fedorapeople.org/fparser.spec
cmake patch: http://thofmann.fedorapeople.org/fparser.cmake.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069257
--- Comment #11 from Till Hofmann ---
(In reply to Susi Lehtola from comment #9)
> (In reply to Till Hofmann from comment #7)
> > Thanks for the hints and sorry for not following the guidelines.
> >
> > Is it OK to upload the SPEC and SRPM a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069257
--- Comment #10 from Till Hofmann ---
(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #6)
>
> | %files
> | %doc docs/gpl.txt docs/lgpl.txt
>
> The spec file doesn't comment on that. What's the full story here? Including
> the GPLv3 with the p
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069257
--- Comment #9 from Susi Lehtola ---
(In reply to Till Hofmann from comment #7)
> Thanks for the hints and sorry for not following the guidelines.
>
> Is it OK to upload the SPEC and SRPM as attachment or should I rather put
> them somewhere
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069257
--- Comment #8 from Till Hofmann ---
Koji build for rawhide:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6576080
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069257
--- Comment #7 from Till Hofmann ---
Thanks for the hints and sorry for not following the guidelines.
Since I forgot to state it in the description: This is my first package and I'm
seeking a sponsor.
There is a successful koji build for thi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069257
--- Comment #6 from Michael Schwendt ---
> License:LGPLv3
That's what some of the source file headers say. But both the LGPL and GPL
files are included:
| %files
| %doc docs/gpl.txt docs/lgpl.txt
The spec file doesn't comment on
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069257
--- Comment #5 from Susi Lehtola ---
If you aren't a packager yet, you need to
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069257
Susi Lehtola changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||susi.leht...@iki.fi
--- Comment #4 fro
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069257
Rich Mattes changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||674008
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069257
Till Hofmann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
Summa
41 matches
Mail list logo
