Re: [Fedora Robotics] rcssserver3d Review Request

[Hedayat Vatankhah <hedayatv@xxxxxxxxx>]

/*Tim Niemueller <tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>*/ wrote on 06/10/2008 08:31:25 PM:
> Hedayat Vatankhah schrieb:
>
> ...
> >     - The devel packages triggers rpmlint warnings which have to be fixed:
> >     # rpmlint rcssserver3d-devel-0.5.9-1.fc9.x86_64.rpm
> >     rcssserver3d-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
> >     ...
> >     /usr/lib64/rcssserver3d/libtinyxml.so libtinyxml.so.0.0.0
> >     rcssserver3d-devel.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink
> >     ...
> >     rcssserver3d-devel.x86_64: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
> >
> > ...
> >     
>
> The main package should have README, AUTHORS, LICENSE files etc., the
> verbose documentation is well-placed in the -doc subpackage. You can
> ignore the no-documentation warning in that case for the other packages.
>   
OK, so I'll ignore this warning and will create -doc package. The main 
package has the mentioned files.

> > 2. What should I do with dangling-relative-symlink warning? The symlinks
> > are valid, but the targets are in the main package. I don't know what
> > should I do to prevent these warnings :( What can I do?
> >     
>
> The link should probably point to the full path, not just the file. Give
> it a try, I'm not absolutely sure on this one.
>   
OK, I'll check it

> > 3. I should go home and check it again, but I think there are only some
> > symlinks in /usr/lib. What's the problem? I don't know what else should
> > be in this directory as other files should be in the main package.
> >     
>
> You mean for the very same problem?
>   
Oh sorry, I was talking about this error:

E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib


> > ...
> >     
>
> Just a short explanation like "CVS contains fixes needed for proper
> Fedora packaging". You need then a special release number like
> 0.5.10-0.1.cvs20080610. Note the release number of 0.1. This is required
> to allow for proper upgrading when the final 0.5.10 is released.
>   
OK, thanks.

> >     - The explicit requires on the libraries shouldn't be necessary,
> >     rpmbuild should be able to figure them out automatically
> >
> > I was forced to add them for SUSE Build Service. Is there any need to
> > remove them?
> >     
>
> It's a recommendation in the guidelines to *not* have these explicit
> requires if not really necessary. You can just leave it out in the
> Fedora block.
>   
OK!

> >     - What do you mean by comment 4, the "included some so files". What are
> >     these .so files? If these libraries are part of rcssserver3d they should
> >     be added! I don't really understand what you mean I think.
> >
> > Sorry for this ambiguity. It is stated in Fedora packaging guidelines
> > that when a package includes versioned .so files, the .so symlinks must
> > go in the -devel package. But I can't do that since the server's binary
> > looks for these .so files. This is why only a few of .so files are in
> > the -devel package.
> >     
>
> Does it explicitly dlopen these files? Auto-linking at runtime should
> catch this otherwise. If it dlopens the files these could account as
> "plugins" or so, and in that case I think it is fine to have these in
> the main package.
>   
Yes, they ARE plugins.

OK, thank you very much. I'll fix my .spec file and will create a new 
SRPM using CVS version of the server.

Good luck,
Hedayat

>   
> >     I haven't done any runtime tests.
> >
> > At least, they work on my system.
> >     
>
> Good.
>
> 	Tim
>
>   

_______________________________________________
Fedora-robotics-list mailing list
Fedora-robotics-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-robotics-list