[Fedora Robotics] rcssserver3d Review Request

[Hedayat Vatankhah]

Hi Tim,
Thank you a lot for your fast response and detailed answer. It is great.

On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 3:40 PM, Tim Niemueller <tim at niemueller.de> wrote:

> ...
> Great! I've compiled the package and got some errors:
>
> - Unpackaged file /usr/bin/rcssmonitor3D-lite, after adding this to the
> %files section I could build it.

Oh, Thanks! Since I don't have freeglut-devel installed, this file wasn't
produced on my system. This file isn't useful now and I'll remove it in the
%install section.



> - 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
> ...
> /usr/lib64/rcssserver3d/libtinyxml.so libtinyxml.so.0.0.0
> rcssserver3d-devel.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink
> ...
> rcssserver3d-devel.x86_64: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib

Would you please help me a little:
1. There are some documentation for developers, but since they're a little
big, I prefer to package them in a separate package. (They will double the
package size). However there are some HTML pages which I can put here as
documentation (I wanted to put them in the doc package). Is it necessary to
have some doc 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?

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 should consider splitting the patch in one GCC4.3 and one rpath patch
>
> - You are a rcssserver3d committer, right? So why not commit the fixes
> and build a package from SVN?
>
> - The patches seem to contain changes besides fixing rpath and GCC 4.3,
> are these changes necessary? Should be a separate patch then.


In fact, I first committed these change to rcssserver3d's CVS and then
created the patches using that. This is why all of the patches are in a
single file.
Yes, I personally prefer to create a package from CVS, but since one of the
review requirement was to compare the package's sources MD5 with upstream
release, I thought that I can't build a package from CVS. What should I
include in my review request if I build a package from the CVS code?

- 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?


- 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.


I haven't done any runtime tests.

At least, they work on my system.

Thanks again,
Hedayat


> Jeff, can I do the review and you sponsor him or do you need to do the
> review then as well (I can't sponsor).
>
>        Tim
>
> --
>    Tim Niemueller <tim at niemueller.de>      www.niemueller.de
> =================================================================
>  Imagination is more important than knowledge. (Albert Einstein)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fedora-robotics-list mailing list
> Fedora-robotics-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-robotics-list
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-robotics-list/attachments/20080609/aac68295/attachment.htm>