[Bug 188180] Review Request: qt4: Qt GUI toolkit

[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: qt4: Qt GUI toolkit


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188180





------- Additional Comments From laurent.rineau__fedora_extras at normalesup.org  2006-05-23 18:48 EST -------
(In reply to comment #116)
> 2. Should all the subpackages own /usr/lib/qt4? The main package owns it

This my fault. rpm has a bug, and if subpackages do not own such common 
directories, the latter remain when one uninstall the whole package with its 
subpackages. I did not know it was a rpm bug that is fixed in CVS.

I wrote a mail to the FE-list, about this subject. It appears that one can own 
the directories this way, but it is not a must. Quote of the reply of Ville 
Skyttä <ville.skytta at iki.fi>:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The guideline kind of assumes that rpm does proper erasure ordering, but
as far as I know, no FC version ships with such rpm.  Strictly speaking,
there are *lots* of packages around that may cause empty dirs being left
behind because of that (everything except "filesystem"?), and if the fix
for #89500 turns out as expected, the affected ones would be instantly
fixed without making any changes to packages and multi-ownership of dirs
(for this particular purpose) would become zero-value
specfile/rpmdb/repodata cruft.

In my opinion that's why the guideline should hold.  Micro-managing the
dirs in a few packages here and there doesn't help much at all in the
big picture.
-------------------------- end of quote ----------------------------

(In reply to comment #117)
> 3. Ownership of /usr/lib/qt4/plugins and /usr/lib/qt4/plugins/sqldrivers 
also
> looks fishy...

Again: added after my demand. It could be fixed, or keep this way.

> Laurent, do you see anything further on x86_64? 

No. That's why I stopped spamming this bug after comment #115! ;-)

I do not see blockers.

As regards this point:
(In reply to comment #116)
> 1. These might need attention: 
>  
> E: qt4-devel 
script-without-shellbang /usr/lib/qt4/mkspecs/macx-xcode/qmake.conf
> E: qt4-devel 
script-without-shellbang /usr/lib/qt4/mkspecs/macx-xcode/Info.plist.app
> E: qt4-devel 
script-without-shellbang /usr/lib/qt4/mkspecs/macx-pbuilder/qmake.conf
> E: qt4-devel script-without-shellbang
> /usr/lib/qt4/mkspecs/macx-pbuilder/Info.plist.app
> 
> Might need permissions to be 644? Or do we even need the macx apps packaged? 

The only needed directories in %{qtdir}/mkspecs are maybe linux-g++*. However, 
the install: rule of Qt makefiles install "make-specs" for all platforms. 
Maybe it can be usefull for cross-compiling or something like that. IMO, it 
should be keeped. I can help a Qt developer to debug a problem that occurs 
only on other platforms. Maybe. :-\

The permissions could be easily fixed. However, this is not a blocker.


-- 
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.