Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: gtkglextmm


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191594





------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-05-15 03:20 EST -------
(In reply to comment #2)
> Alright, I reuploaded a new version of the spec.
Please increment the release-tag. 

I am going to continue the review once you do.

> > * The spec explicitly 
> > Requires: gtkglext
> > Requires: gtkmm24
> 
> > This shouldn't be necessary.
> 
> Ok, I removed them. But for my personal education, could you explain me why ?
The main package is a pure run-time library package. Rpms of applications using
these libraries will automatically be added dependencies on these shared
libraries and their dependencies, when *building* rpms of these applications.
(i.e. these Requires are necessary in *-devel rpms, but not in runtime rpms).

> is the first rpm spec I write, I only have a previous experience with gentoo
> ebuilds ... Is it because rpm added automatically a dependency on the
> *librairies* in the gtkglext package by checking undefined symbols ?
Almost. Rpm adds dependencies on the libraries (It adds "Requires:
libfoo.so.1"), not on the package ("Requires: foo"). 
Depsolvers/Installers such as yum/apt etc. will translate "Requires:
libfoo.so.1" into packages.
 
> > * Please explain /usr/lib/gtkglextmm-1.2/proc/m4/*
> > I don't know what these files are (Look like some m4 macros to help 
> > converting
> > some types), how they are supposed to be used and why they need to be 
> > shipped.
> 
> > AFAIS, they don't they seem to be used by anything in gtkglextmm.
> 
> Well, I use this library as an app developper,
I am heavily using GtkGLExt with C++ and have never found gtkmm/gtkglextmm to be
attractive ;)

> and I don't need these files
> either. However, directly from the README file in the source package in 
> tools/m4 :
..
> So I guess some people have a use for it ...
Hmm, seems like an historic artefact (== upstream bug) or a packaging bug in FE
gtkmm to me. AFAICT, older versions of gtkmm seem to have shipped scripts using
the macros, newer versions don't seem to do so.

Anyway, this is not a blocker for this review.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

_______________________________________________
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

Reply via email to