[Fedora Robotics] rcssserver3d Review Request

[Hedayat Vatankhah]

Hi!
I've uploaded new SRPM and SPEC files. It would be nice if you or 
anybody else could have another look.

Thanks
Hedayat

/*Tim Niemueller <tim at niemueller.de>*/ wrote on 06/10/2008 08:31:25 PM:
> Hedayat Vatankhah schrieb:
>   
>> Hi Tim,
>> Thank you a lot for your fast response and detailed answer. It is great.
>>     
>
> That's what this SIG is meant to be good for :-)
>
>   
>> On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 3:40 PM, Tim Niemueller <tim at niemueller.de
>> <mailto: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.
>>     
>
> OK.
>
>   
>>     - 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?!
>>     
>
> 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.
>
>   
>> 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.
>
>   
>> 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?
>
>   
>>     - 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?
>>     
>
> 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.
>
>   
>>     - 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.
>
>   
>>     - 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.
>
>   
>>     I haven't done any runtime tests.
>>
>> At least, they work on my system.
>>     
>
> Good.
>
> 	Tim
>
>