Request for review: libgeotiff

[Shawn McCann]

I'm wondering whether the last set of updates addressed the review
comments adequately and whether this package is now approved for submission.

Thanks

Shawn


Shawn McCann wrote:

>Ralf,
>
>Thanks for the detailed comments and for taking the time to provide the
>diffs. They were much easier for me to follow (I understand the comments
>about the directories now).
>
>I've updated the spec file as you've recommended and changed the Makefile
>patch to the one provided.
>
>Updated files are in the same place.
>
>SPEC: http://www.canasoft.ca/fedora/libgeotiff.spec
>SRPM: http://www.canasoft.ca/fedora/libgeotiff-1.2.2-1.src.rpm
>
>Shawn
>
>
>  
>
>>On Sun, 2005-07-17 at 17:05 -0700, Shawn McCann wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>OK, found a Makefile patch for this problem on newrpms.sunsite.dk
>>>(thanks
>>>to Rudolf Kastl) and have included it in the revised spec file. Both RPM
>>>packages install successfully now.
>>>
>>>Regarding the second comment, not sure why you think those files are not
>>>being included in the RPMS.
>>>
>>>/usr/share/epsg_csv is included under %files
>>>   %{_datadir}/epsg_csv/*.csv
>>>
>>>/usr/include/geotiff is included under %files devel
>>>   %{_includedir}/geotiff/*.h
>>>      
>>>
>>The directories %{_datadir}/epsg_csv %{_includedir}/geotiff are
>>unowned.
>>
>>You probably want to use
>>%{_datadir}/epsg_csv
>>%{_includedir}/geotiff
>>
>>    
>>
>>>>On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 13:20:26 -0700 (PDT), Shawn McCann wrote:
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>Ralf,
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks for the feedback. I've updated the file to address all your
>>>>>comments and posted the new version.
>>>>>
>>>>>SPEC: http://www.canasoft.ca/fedora/libgeotiff.spec
>>>>>SRPM: http://www.canasoft.ca/fedora/libgeotiff-1.2.2-1.src.rpm
>>>>>
>>>>>However, I'm having one problem now. The base package includes two
>>>>>executables that link to libgeotiff.so (which is why I had
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>libgeotiff.so
>>>      
>>>
>>>>>in the base package and included it in the Provides: directive). Now
>>>>>that
>>>>>I've moved libgeotiff.so back to the devel package, the base package
>>>>>won't
>>>>>install as it can't find libgeotiff.so. Any advice on how to deal
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>with
>>>      
>>>
>>>>>this?
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>That's upstream sloppiness -- a bug. Library has no SONAME. It ought
>>>>to be patched to get the name "libgeotiff.so.1". Then the executables
>>>>will link against and depend on the proper SONAME.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>The patch sets SONAME to libgeotiff.so.1.2.2, i.e. binaries are being
>>dynamically linked against libgeotiff.so.1.2.2:
>>
>>ldd /usr/bin/geotifcp
>>...
>>        libgeotiff.so.1.2.2 => /usr/lib/libgeotiff.so.1.2.2 (0x007ce000)
>>
>>The SONAME should better be libgeotiff.so.1
>>
>>    
>>
>>>>You also want to include the following directories in the binary
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>packages:
>>>      
>>>
>>>>  /usr/include/geotiff/
>>>>  /usr/share/epsg_csv/
>>>>        
>>>>
>>Exactly. This is not yet fixed yet.
>>
>>    
>>
>>>>Some of Ralf's findings are not fixed yet.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>The bogus Provides: line is still present.
>>
>>I am proposing the patch to libgeotiff.spec and to the Makefile, below.
>>
>>An issue I haven't looked into: libgeotiff.so.1.2.2 contains references
>>to other libraries (e.g. libtiff). So it could be reasonable to let the
>>*-devel package require further *-devel packages (e.g. libtiff-devel).
>>
>>Ralf
>>
>>--
>>fedora-extras-list mailing list
>>fedora-extras-list at redhat.com
>>https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>--
>fedora-extras-list mailing list
>fedora-extras-list at redhat.com
>https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
>
>  
>