[Bug 190139] Review Request: rapidsvn - Graphical interface for the Subversion version-control system

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: rapidsvn - Graphical interface for the Subversion version-control system


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190139





------- Additional Comments From rpm at timj.co.uk  2006-04-29 06:42 EST -------
Thanks very much indeed for your comments Jason. You've raised a number of
interesting points there. I'll take them each in turn.

1. Licensing (inclusion of license documents): fixed, though see also below
about subpackages

2. Build on x86_64; I don't use this architecture but I have added
--with-svn-lib=%_libdir which I think should fix it. Please give it a go. 

3. ldconfig: done

4. autoconf: removed from BR; I don't think it's needed either; it's a leftover
from the spec I originally cannibalised.

5. %check: the tests in src/tests/svncpp are now run

Now onto the bigger issues: looking more closely, rapidsvn bundles (as you
noted) libsvncpp.so*. This is a library which is not strictly related to
rapidsvn, providing as it does an abstract C++ API for Subversion. Now, in an
ideal world we would have svncpp as a totally separate package, but at the
moment it is not distributed as such upstream; only as a bundled part of
rapidsvn. However, it's quite forseeable that that might change (if, for
example, other apps started linking to svncpp then it would quickly become
annoying having it bundled with rapidsvn). So, we should package it reflecting
the fact that it is functionally independent of rapidsvn. Therefore, my updated
spec builds three separate packages:

- svncpp (dynamic, versioned libsvncpp .sos)
- svncpp-devel (headers and unversioned .so)
- rapidsvn (GUI app linked to svncpp)

This also neatly solves the issue of what to put in the License field and what
license docs to include; svncpp and svncpp-devel are LGPL and marked as such and
rapidsvn is GPL.

An open question which I would appreciate advice on (PackageNamingGuidelines has
none) is whether the svncpp package should be called "svncpp" or "libsvncpp".
It's referred to as "svncpp" upstream but many other similar libraries are
packaged named as "libXXX". I don't have any strong feelings either way.

New spec/SRPM:
Spec URL: http://www.timj.co.uk/linux/specs/rapidsvn.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.timj.co.uk/linux/srpms/rapidsvn-0.9.1-2.src.rpm

Tested and builds in mock i386.
rpmlint is now quiet for the SRPM and all three output packages.

There's a bit of an open question about what I should do with LICENSE.txt as
this refers to all three packages (rapidsvn, svncpp, svncpp-devel). I could
include it in all, but even then should it be patched to split off the bits
relevant to each package? Again, advice welcome.

Thanks for your time.


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.