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: pinball - Emilia Pinball game


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201178





------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-08-10 05:40 EST -------
(In reply to comment #8)
> Bad
> Missing rm -rf %{buildroot} at the start of %install
> 

Good catch! New version with this fixed (only specfile changed):
Spec URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/pinball.spec
SRPM URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/pinball-0.3.1-5.src.rpm


(In reply to comment #9)
> Can you also check that if you use the fedora libtool if the .la files are
> still needed?
Yes they are still needed.


(In reply to comment #10)
> It may be worth actually patching the app to use the fedora libtool and seems
> pretty trivial to do...
> 

It already is using the Fedora/system libtool, quoting from %setup:
"rm -fr libltdl", so there is no way its using its own version :)


> in LoaderModule.cpp, Line 86 change
> 
> lt_dlopen() to lt_dlopenext() and remove the extension on the passed in 
> filename
> 
> There may be a couple more of those, so you'll need to grep the source.

That is not using the Fedora libtool, that is patching arounds libltdl's
behaviour / default use to open the .la files. All kde apps with plugings (as in
Fedora) do this, and I see no reason why pinball shouldn't/couldn't there is no
reason to deviate from upstream here / use ltdl in a non standard way here.

.la files are evil / must be removed for normal libraries which are intended to
link against, because when an application gets build using libtool and those .la
files are there libtool will prefer the .la files above the .so files and will
use the often broken dependencies in those .la files instead of the soname deps
in the .so files (which get tracked by rpm). This is known as libtool dependency
hell, but this only happens with libraries which are intented to link against by
other apps and which thus are usually installed directly into %_libdir and not
into a subdir of it as the *plugins* are. So there is no reason to start
patching and deviating from upstream here, the .la files are harmless because
they are for plugins and beside harmless also needed as this is the default mode
of operation of ltdl. If you don't like this file a bug against ltdl and the
zillion of kde packages doing the same.

(In reply to comment #11)
> Created an attachment (id=133896)
 --> 
(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=133896&action=view) 
[edit]
> Patch to allow ltdl to load from an so instead of an la file
> 
> Hey Hans, Here's a patch to load the modules from the .so file if the .la file
> is not present.  This patch would be a good starting point with upstream but
> may need a little work (I'm not sure whether the fallback lt_dlopen() is
> necessary and my C++ dates from before the STL so you can tell how rusty I 
> am.)
>  I'll submit my spec file as well so you can diff for the changes.

Thanks,  but no thanks see above for the reasoning.


-- 
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