[Bug 480056] Review Request: libchamplain-gtk - Gtk+ widget wrapper for libchamplain

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480056





--- Comment #2 from Debarshi Ray <debarshi.ray at gmail.com>  2009-02-21 15:42:53 EDT ---
Sorry for the delayed response.

Till now libchamplain and libchamplain-gtk had two separate source trees, which
has recently been merged into one. This happened earlier than I had predicted.
However it will take some time for the first release from this merged tree.
Therefore I am not sure whether we should go ahead with this review, because
libchamplain-gtk will be very short-lived as a separate source package. Once
the 0.4.x (or 0.3.x) releases come out from the unified tree, libchamplain-gtk
will become a sub-package of libchamplain.

What do you think?

(In reply to comment #1)
> Couple of things :
> 
> - you should not put "%{version}" macro in the patch0 source filename, since
> this will force you to rename it everytime you update the package. Although not
> officially in the guidelines, most people hardcode the version that the patch
> was derived from, and keep that version in the filename until the patch no
> longer applies and has to be recreated...

Yes, you are right. The reason I do it is to force myself to rebase the patches
on every new upstream release to avoid any silly build failures due to the new
RPM's zero fuzz tolerance, or have any ancient patches lying around.

> - why the pkgconfig patch ? I can see the development headers indeed only need
> libchamplain and gtk2 but this most likely will not stay true in the future.
> Seems a bit over the top...

In case they actually add any new dependencies then we will have to add it in
the Spec (only on F10 since F11 auto-detects pkgconfig stuff) and modify/remove
the patch accordingly. I have notified the upstream author and he seems to
agree that the pkgconfig file might be faulty.

It somehow does not feel right to knowingly distribute a faulty file. :-)

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.