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: lesstif - OSF/Motif(R) library clone


           What    |Removed                     |Added
             Status|NEEDINFO                    |ASSIGNED
               Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]) |

------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-08-21 08:32 EST -------
(In reply to comment #11)
> Quick-n-dirty items I see:
> 1.  MUST drop Obsoletes/Provides: openmotif, openmotif-devel
> at least for now(*).  No Conflicts either.  See also 6.

I will do that but don't we want to have mutually exclusive
packages, at least for -devel, with lesstif-devel replacing
openmotif-devel on upgrades?

> (*) Maybe we could consider using versioned Ob/Pr, say something like 
> Obsoletes:
> openmotif < 2.2, openmotif21, Provides: openmotif = 2.1, but there would have 
> to
> be a strong demonstratable need for this (and I currently don't see any).

I can't see how it would help either.

> 2.  MUST: +BuildRequires: fontconfig-devel, since ./configure says:
> checking for fontconfig-config... no
> checking fontconfig/fontconfig.h usability... yes
> checking fontconfig/fontconfig.h presence... yes
> checking for fontconfig/fontconfig.h... yes
> checking for FcInit... yes

Right, missed it.

> 3.  MUST: +BuildRequires: mesa-libGLw-devel

or libGLw-devel?

> 4.  MUST: use versioned Obsoletes/Provides: lesstif-clients, ie,
> Obsoletes: lesstif-clients < %{version}-%{release}
> Provides:  lesstif-clients = %{version}-%{release}

If you like.

> 5.  SHOULD: drop Oboletes/Provides: lesstif-1.2-devel, lesstif-2.0-devel
> I see no purpose for this (anymore), especially Provides.

I kept them from the fc3 spec. I'll remove.

> 6.  SHOULD: Come up with a better co-installable solution, maybe split out
> lesstif-clients again (like upstream) so the main pkg doesn't conflict.

I don't view it like this. If openmotif is going away, it would be
better to split openmotif to have a compat package that only provides
the binary libraries (with the issue of the sonames I report above
that could be very painfull).

If I haven't misunderstood what xmbind is, it should be provided with
the library, not in a separate package. And uil is, in y opinion much
better in the -devel subpackage.

> Conflicts in -clients and/or -devel is ok, imo.  But for now, maybe don't 
> worry
> about this too much... we're going on the assumption (for now) that 
> openmotif's
> non-OSI license will eject it from Fedora.

In any other case packaging lesstif to be fully parallel installable
would be too much pain without benefit, and may prove hard to achieve,
and using the lesstif library would be in that case quite painfull.

Configure bugmail:
------- 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

Reply via email to