Re: [Fedora Robotics] rcssserver3d Review Request
|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
/*Tim Niemueller <tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>*/ wrote on 06/10/2008 08:31:25 PM:
OK, so I'll ignore this warning and will create -doc package. The main package has the mentioned files.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.
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.
- 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.
- 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