On 02/19/2010 08:54 AM, D. Michael McIntyre wrote: > On Thursday 18 February 2010, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: > > >> are 755. I believe that they need to be 644. >> > They are. That's odd. > > >> 2) Can we add the line >> GenericName=Audio and MIDI Sequencer >> to data/desktop/rosegarden.desktop ? >> > Yes. > I've copied and fixed the desktop file a long time ago and install it separately on openSUSE. There's a package from freedesktop.org called desktop-file-utils and it contains an executable called desktop-file-validate which will pick up any errors in the .desktop file. If you can run that on a .desktop file without errors then none of the distros build systems will complain about it. > >> 3) Fedora's rules tell us we need to pass specific flags to the >> compiler. However the environment variable CXXFLAGS is being overriden >> by the configure script. The only way I could hack this around was to >> pass a sed 's|@CXXFLAGS@|%optflags|' to Makefile.in. Can we make this >> a bit easier? >> I used a patch on configure.ac to pass $RPM_OPT_FLAGS in the openSUSE build but it would be nice if we could pass the flags in the spec file. > Yes, although I find this solution questionable. I'm no build system guy, > and > not really qualified to have an opinion on this, so I'm putting a hold on > resolving this issue until Chris Cannam weighs in. > > Chris, if you please? > > >> 4) Fedora does not allow indirect linking with libraries anymore. If >> an application or a library uses symbols from another library, it has >> to link to it. Otherwise the compilation fails. I needed to pass the >> flags "-lz -lX11 -ldl" to the linker in order to make rosegarden >> compile on Fedora. It would be good to have this upstreamed as other >> distros may also follow Fedora in this regard. >> > I tested to make sure this change had no apparent impact on Ubuntu, and it > didn't. I have no objection to upstreaming this for your convenience. > openSUSE hasn't got this far yet but it will be nice if I don't get a sudden build failure when it does. > > >> 5) This one may be very Fedora specific: The font .pfa files are >> compiled into the final binary. This is a big NO in Fedora. I had to >> patch them out and install them in /usr/share/fonts/rosegarden/. I am >> attaching the patch. It is not the most portable patch but I just >> wanted to bring this into your attention. Can we add a configure flag >> to separate the data files from the binary? >> > This has been something of a contentious issue, and it makes me remember the > bad old days when JACK was impossible to get into distros because Paul Davis > steadfastly insisted on static linking everything, and would rant about it if > you asked him to, or even if you didn't. > > My take on this is that bundling everything into the binary is clean and easy > to maintain, and it doesn't bother me a bit. Being able to run 15 different > ./rosegarden without ever installing anything is extremely useful for > development, and extremely convenient for users who inevitably wind up > compiling some SVN snapshot in between releases, and will want to run it > alongside their stable release backup version (which is one of the exciting > key benefits of the new Rosegarden). > > How can we reconcile all of this so everyone wins? > > Opinions from other developers? > > Opinions from users? > > I'm by no means refusing to accommodate this upstream, but it needs some > discussion so we can come to an equitable arrangement. > > >> 6) The DSSI and LADSPA plugin paths are wrong on 64 bit systems. I am >> attaching a patch to correct the issue. >> > Wrong on 64-bit systems on certain distros. This has come up before, and we > didn't see a clear path to resolving the issue in a sufficiently generic way, > so we chose to do nothing. > > This doesn't affect 64-bit Debian/Ubuntu at all, which most developers are > using. > > No distro wars here. I really don't care. All I know is the last time > someone offered a patch for this, we debated it, and then did nothing. Any > solution is going to have to be agreeable to everyone involved, and this is > another contentious issue. > > Resolution where everyone wins? What are the variables here? > I've just left the patch, I made for openSUSE, in place for this problem. One of the jobs of a package maintainer is ensuring that these distro specific problems are sorted out for the package. Regards Dave P > > >> Please ask me questions if I need to make anything clearer. I can >> write patches for the other issues (2-4) too if you want me to. Thank >> you for your time and for the great software. The new version looks >> awesome. >> > I'll be happy to accept patches, and I'll be happy to work with you as much > as > possible. It's refreshing to see a package maintainer taking these issues > upstream and opening this kind of dialog, and I hope you don't get too > frustrated with me for not agreeing with all of your suggestions > instantaneously. >
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev _______________________________________________ Rosegarden-devel mailing list [email protected] - use the link below to unsubscribe https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-devel
