[Fedora Robotics] rcssserver3d Review Request
Hedayat Vatankhah
hedayatv at gmail.com
Tue Jun 10 18:36:02 UTC 2008
/*Tim Niemueller <tim at niemueller.de>*/ wrote on 06/10/2008 08:31:25 PM:
> Hedayat Vatankhah schrieb:
>
> ...
>> - 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
>>
>> ...
>>
>
> The main package should have README, AUTHORS, LICENSE files etc., the
> verbose documentation is well-placed in the -doc subpackage. You can
> ignore the no-documentation warning in that case for the other packages.
>
OK, so I'll ignore this warning and will create -doc package. The main
package has the mentioned 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?
>>
>
> The link should probably point to the full path, not just the file. Give
> it a try, I'm not absolutely sure on this one.
>
OK, I'll check it
>> 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 mean for the very same problem?
>
Oh sorry, I was talking about this error:
E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
>> ...
>>
>
> Just a short explanation like "CVS contains fixes needed for proper
> Fedora packaging". You need then a special release number like
> 0.5.10-0.1.cvs20080610. Note the release number of 0.1. This is required
> to allow for proper upgrading when the final 0.5.10 is released.
>
OK, thanks.
>> - 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?
>>
>
> It's a recommendation in the guidelines to *not* have these explicit
> requires if not really necessary. You can just leave it out in the
> Fedora block.
>
OK!
>> - 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.
>>
>
> Does it explicitly dlopen these files? Auto-linking at runtime should
> catch this otherwise. If it dlopens the files these could account as
> "plugins" or so, and in that case I think it is fine to have these in
> the main package.
>
Yes, they ARE plugins.
OK, thank you very much. I'll fix my .spec file and will create a new
SRPM using CVS version of the server.
Good luck,
Hedayat
>
>> I haven't done any runtime tests.
>>
>> At least, they work on my system.
>>
>
> Good.
>
> Tim
>
>
More information about the Fedora-robotics-list
mailing list