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:
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
    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.

    - 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,

    I haven't done any runtime tests.

At least, they work on my system.



Fedora-robotics-list mailing list

[Fedora Users]     [Fedora Electronics Lab]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite News]     [Yosemite Photos]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]     [Fedora Summer Coding]

Powered by Linux