[Bug 199168] Review Request: CGAL
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: CGAL Alias: CGAL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=199168 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora Version|devel |rawhide -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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
[Bug 199168] Review Request: CGAL
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: CGAL Alias: CGAL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199168 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-14 18:48 EST --- I have change my email address in Fedora's account system, as well as in Bugzilla. Can you apply s/laurent.rineau__fedora_extras/Laurent.Rineau__fedora/ in owners.list? Packages Changes Request == Package Name: CGAL Updated Fedora Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Packages Changes Request == Package Name: ipe Updated Fedora Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Packages Changes Request == Package Name: libsyncml Updated Fedora Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Packages Changes Request == Package Name: par2cmdline Updated Fedora Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Packages Changes Request == Package Name: wbxml2 Updated Fedora Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- 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
[Bug 199168] Review Request: CGAL
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: CGAL Alias: CGAL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199168 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- 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
[Bug 199168] Review Request: CGAL
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: CGAL Alias: CGAL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199168 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-14 20:45 EST --- cvs done. -- 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
[Bug 199168] Review Request: CGAL
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: CGAL Alias: CGAL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199168 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-10 15:50 EST --- Hi Laurent, there have been no negative comments so I'll APPROVE this package. Please fix the two small needswork items (comment #22) before submitting the first build and please consider adding the CGALQt patch in comment #21. Thanks! -- 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
[Bug 199168] Review Request: CGAL
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: CGAL Alias: CGAL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199168 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-01 08:19 EST --- Created an attachment (id=135376) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=135376action=view) Patch for shared CGALQt lib With the attached patch you can modify the Makefile to produce a shared CGALQt lib. This works just fine and we have used this in production for more than a year. -- 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
[Bug 199168] Review Request: CGAL
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: CGAL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199168 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 03:29 EST --- (In reply to comment #13) (In reply to comment #10) (In reply to comment #9) Actions(In reply to comment #7) E: CGAL-devel script-without-shellbang /etc/profile.d/cgal.sh E: CGAL-devel script-without-shellbang /etc/profile.d/cgal.csh As far as I know, these rpmlint errors should be ignored. Nope, these scripts are incomplete. MUSTFIX This is really an ignorable error. Well, agreed, it's minor error, nevertheless it's an error and easy to fix. These files are sourced and not executed. Then they should NOT be executable = chmod -x Most of the files in /etc/profile.d don't have a shebang. Just because others are sloppy, doesn't mean I need to be. -- 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
[Bug 199168] Review Request: CGAL
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: CGAL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199168 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 07:48 EST --- (In reply to comment #16) E: CGAL-devel script-without-shellbang /etc/profile.d/cgal.sh E: CGAL-devel script-without-shellbang /etc/profile.d/cgal.csh These files are sourced and not executed. Then they should NOT be executable = chmod -x Agreed. It is patch in my spec file. Maybe should someone fill bugs about other packages that share that issue. I do not know how to use XML-XPC. TODO-latter (In reply to comment #8) - A more general design problem: Some headers in /usr/include/CGAL hard-code configuration-time detected * system features, e.g. the version of zlib and Qt The CGAL_FOOBAR_VERSION macros are not used in CGAL, actually. They are here only for internal uses (to be displayed by the testsuite). I can prune that from the package. * compiler characteristics, e.g. endianness. The endianness detection has been fixed in the upstream SVN repository yesterday, from your comment #10. It now uses macros, and no longer hard-code endianness. I will backport the patch in the src.rpm package. (In reply to comment #8) Further issues: - The *-devel package ships /usr/include/CORE IMO, this directory name is too general. - Static libs: /usr/lib/libCGALQt.a /usr/lib/libcore++.a These two issue last. And I do not see how to deal with that (especially the /usr/include/CORE issue, which cannot be fixed without changing CORE documentation and uses). (In reply to comment #10) CGAL is a meta-package that requires CGAL-libs, CGAL-devel, and CGAL-sources. Contradicts Fedora conventions and IMNSOH, is complete non-sense. Consider this to be a MUST FIX. Put the run-time libs into CGAL or CGAL-libs and the devel files into *-devel. As I said in comment #11, libs already are in CGAL-libs, and devel files are in CGAL-devel. I do not understand your point. What is the contradiction with Fedora conventions? -- 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
[Bug 199168] Review Request: CGAL
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: CGAL Alias: CGAL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199168 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||CGAL -- 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
[Bug 199168] Review Request: CGAL
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: CGAL Alias: CGAL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199168 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 09:18 EST --- (In reply to comment #17) (In reply to comment #16) Contradicts Fedora conventions and IMNSOH, is complete non-sense. Consider this to be a MUST FIX. Put the run-time libs into CGAL or CGAL-libs and the devel files into *-devel. As I said in comment #11, libs already are in CGAL-libs, and devel files are in CGAL-devel. I do not understand your point. What is the contradiction with Fedora conventions? CGAL would be assumed to contain runtime libs and/or applications and must not depend on *-devel. I would rename CGAL-libs into CGAL and drop the current CGAL entirely. It doesn't make sense. Alternatively, if you want to keep *-libs, just drop CGAL entirely. -- 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
[Bug 199168] Review Request: CGAL
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: CGAL Alias: CGAL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199168 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 10:12 EST --- Update: Spec URL: http://www.di.ens.fr/~rineau/Fedora/CGAL-3.2.1-15.fc5.src.rpm SRPM URL: http://www.di.ens.fr/~rineau/Fedora/CGAL.spec %changelog * Thu Aug 17 2006 Laurent Rineau [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 3.2.1-15 - Change the permissions of /etc/profile.d/cgal.*sh - Remove the meta package CGAL. CGAL-libs is renamed CGAL. - Added two patchs: - CGAL-3.2.1-config.h-endianness_detection.patch which is an upstream patch to fix the endianness detection, so that is is no longer hard-coded in CGAL/compiler_config.h, - CGAL-3.2.1-install_cgal-no_versions_in_compiler_config.h.patch that removes hard-coded versions in CGAL/compiler_config.h. I have new errors from rpmlint: E: CGAL-devel script-without-shellbang /etc/profile.d/cgal.sh E: CGAL-devel non-executable-script /etc/profile.d/cgal.sh 0644 E: CGAL-devel script-without-shellbang /etc/profile.d/cgal.csh E: CGAL-devel non-executable-script /etc/profile.d/cgal.csh 0644 that comes from the new permissions of those files. And two new warnings: W: CGAL-devel non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/cgal.sh W: CGAL-devel non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/cgal.csh that could be fixed easily. Reporter Laurent Rineau ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Assigned To Ed Hill ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Save Changes Bug Comments Opened by Laurent Rineau ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) on 2006-07-17 13:36 EST [reply] Spec URL: http://www.di.ens.fr/~rineau/Fedora/CGAL-3.2.1-13-fc5.src.rpm SRPM URL: http://www.di.ens.fr/~rineau/Fedora/CGAL.spec Description: Computational Geometry Algorithms Library CGAL is a collaborative effort of several sites in Europe and Israel. The goal is to make the most important of the solutions and methods developed in computational geometry available to users in industry and academia in a C++ library. The goal is to provide easy access to useful, reliable geometric algorithms. Homepage: http://www.cgal.org/ Packager notes: * With CGAL-3.2.1, the tarball has been pruned from documentation files with undecided license, in order to make packaging possible. * A Debian package has been submitted, and has been accepted http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=251885 * Whereas the Debian packager choose to extract the core++ library and put it in a separate package, I choose to ship libcore++.a in the CGAL package. It could be modified, if needed. * rpmlint shows several errors or warnings. Some of them come from the meta-package CGAL that requires all sub-packages. * The -devel sub-package ships several static library. It is because upstream developers do not want to maintain SOMAJOR numbers for them, now, for libcore++.a, and libCGALQt.a 20060801173634 Comment #1 From Dennis Gilmore ([EMAIL PROTECTED])on 2006-08-01 17:36 EST [reply] static linking is highly frowned upon http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines for more info developer laziness is generally not considered a good enough reason. Looking at the sepc all those macros make the spec file confusing. Dont redefine name version and release. you need full urls to the upstream source tarball. I really sugegst reading the packaging guidelines and doing some work on them 20060802035012 Comment #2 From Laurent Rineau ([EMAIL PROTECTED])on 2006-08-02 03:50 EST [reply] 1/ I know that static libraries should be avoided, when possible (see my not in comment #1). In that case, the upstream developpers do not provide shared library for libCGALQt.a and libcore++.a. For libcore++, I could package Core separately (http://www.cs.nyu.edu/exact/core/download/core_v1.7/). But, for libCGALQt.a, do you see a solution? Waiting for the next release which could have shared version for all libraries cannot be a solution: CGAL releases come each year. It was really a chance that I manage to make the documention files removed from the upstream tarball of CGAL-3.2.1 (for license issues). 2/ As regards the macros... yes I know. This spec file is configurable, so that it can be applied to internal release of CGAL as well. What do you mean by redefining name of version or release? If I am not wrong, the conditionals make them be defined only once. If reviewers agreed that it is two much, I will pruned the spec file to remove the macro, as if the default values were hard-coded. 3/ For the upstream source tarball, I do not understand your point. spectool (from package fedora-rpmdevtools) can understand the macros and give the full URLs. I know pretty well the packaging guidelines. Please give me pointers to paragraphs that I could have missed. 20060814221318 Comment #3 From Ed Hill ([EMAIL
[Bug 199168] Review Request: CGAL
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: CGAL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199168 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-16 02:52 EST --- Further issues: - The *-devel package ships /usr/include/CORE IMO, this directory name is too general. - Static libs: /usr/lib/libCGALQt.a /usr/lib/libcore++.a - A more general design problem: Some headers in /usr/include/CGAL hard-code configuration-time detected * system features, e.g. the version of zlib and Qt * compiler characteristics, e.g. endianness. -- 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
[Bug 199168] Review Request: CGAL
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: CGAL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199168 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-16 03:11 EST --- Actions(In reply to comment #7) I must be missing something very basic: # rpm -qlp CGAL-3.2.1-14.i386.rpm /usr/share/doc/CGAL-3.2.1 /usr/share/doc/CGAL-3.2.1/LICENSE /usr/share/doc/CGAL-3.2.1/LICENSE.FREE_USE /usr/share/doc/CGAL-3.2.1/LICENSE.LGPL /usr/share/doc/CGAL-3.2.1/LICENSE.QPL /usr/share/doc/CGAL-3.2.1/README.Fedora This doesn't look like a reasonable packaging to me. Also: # rpmlint CGAL-*3.2.1-14.i386.rpm E: CGAL devel-dependency CGAL-devel E: CGAL no-binary W: CGAL-devel no-dependency-on CGAL CGAL is a meta-package that requires CGAL-libs, CGAL-devel, and CGAL-sources. The reason is that the CGAL users community is used to get CGAL as a whole. E: CGAL-devel file-in-usr-marked-as-conffile /usr/share/CGAL/make/makefile E: CGAL-devel script-without-shellbang /etc/profile.d/cgal.sh E: CGAL-devel script-without-shellbang /etc/profile.d/cgal.csh As far as I know, these rpmlint errors should be ignored. (In reply to comment #8) Further issues: - The *-devel package ships /usr/include/CORE IMO, this directory name is too general. CGAL-3.2.1 ships CORE-1.7, http://www.cs.nyu.edu/exact/core_pages/intro.html This directory is from CORE. - Static libs: /usr/lib/libCGALQt.a /usr/lib/libcore++.a upstream libCGALQt is static only, as indicated in comment #1, as well as upstream libcore++. I know that static libraries should be avoided as far as possible, in Fedora. Is the upstream devs choice a sufficient reason? - A more general design problem: Some headers in /usr/include/CGAL hard-code configuration-time detected * system features, e.g. the version of zlib and Qt * compiler characteristics, e.g. endianness. Yes, it should only be /usr/include/CGAL/compiler_config.h. Is it a blocker? -- 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
[Bug 199168] Review Request: CGAL
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: CGAL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199168 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-16 03:26 EST --- (In reply to comment #9) Actions(In reply to comment #7) I must be missing something very basic: # rpm -qlp CGAL-3.2.1-14.i386.rpm /usr/share/doc/CGAL-3.2.1 /usr/share/doc/CGAL-3.2.1/LICENSE /usr/share/doc/CGAL-3.2.1/LICENSE.FREE_USE /usr/share/doc/CGAL-3.2.1/LICENSE.LGPL /usr/share/doc/CGAL-3.2.1/LICENSE.QPL /usr/share/doc/CGAL-3.2.1/README.Fedora This doesn't look like a reasonable packaging to me. Also: # rpmlint CGAL-*3.2.1-14.i386.rpm E: CGAL devel-dependency CGAL-devel E: CGAL no-binary W: CGAL-devel no-dependency-on CGAL CGAL is a meta-package that requires CGAL-libs, CGAL-devel, and CGAL-sources. Contradicts Fedora conventions and IMNSOH, is complete non-sense. Consider this to be a MUST FIX. Put the run-time libs into CGAL or CGAL-libs and the devel files into *-devel. E: CGAL-devel file-in-usr-marked-as-conffile /usr/share/CGAL/make/makefile E: CGAL-devel script-without-shellbang /etc/profile.d/cgal.sh E: CGAL-devel script-without-shellbang /etc/profile.d/cgal.csh As far as I know, these rpmlint errors should be ignored. Nope, these scripts are incomplete. MUSTFIX (In reply to comment #8) Further issues: - The *-devel package ships /usr/include/CORE IMO, this directory name is too general. CGAL-3.2.1 ships CORE-1.7, http://www.cs.nyu.edu/exact/core_pages/intro.html This directory is from CORE. And? This doesn't answer my remark. - Static libs: /usr/lib/libCGALQt.a /usr/lib/libcore++.a upstream libCGALQt is static only, as indicated in comment #1, as well as upstream libcore++. I know that static libraries should be avoided as far as possible, in Fedora. Is the upstream devs choice a sufficient reason? Formally not, but it's sufficient reason for me not to approve a package and to classify a package's quality as low ;) - A more general design problem: Some headers in /usr/include/CGAL hard-code configuration-time detected * system features, e.g. the version of zlib and Qt * compiler characteristics, e.g. endianness. Yes, it should only be /usr/include/CGAL/compiler_config.h. Is it a blocker? Well, there actually are 2 issues with this. - Package dependencies. You will have to find a way to handle the hard-coded version dependencies in rpm. - Hard-coding compiler characteristics is a common design flaw many packages suffer from. This should not be much of a problem for current Fedora, but can easily become one. In many cases, such stuff disqualfies a package from inclusion in multilib'ed distros. This is an upstream problem, which probably doesn't affect current Fedora. [Wrt. endianness: Many people miss that endianness is a compiler feature. Packages hard-coding endianness break on biendian targets, e.g. for multilib'ed mips and sh distros] -- 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
[Bug 199168] Review Request: CGAL
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: CGAL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199168 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-16 03:58 EST --- (In reply to comment #10) CGAL is a meta-package that requires CGAL-libs, CGAL-devel, and CGAL-sources. Contradicts Fedora conventions and IMNSOH, is complete non-sense. Consider this to be a MUST FIX. Put the run-time libs into CGAL or CGAL-libs and the devel files into *-devel. For the moment (CGAL-3.2.1-14), libs are in CGAL-libs, and devel files are in CGAL-devel. E: CGAL-devel script-without-shellbang /etc/profile.d/cgal.sh E: CGAL-devel script-without-shellbang /etc/profile.d/cgal.csh As far as I know, these rpmlint errors should be ignored. Nope, these scripts are incomplete. MUSTFIX Ok. I thought it was agreed that shell scripts in /etc/profile.d/ should not have shell bangs. If it is really a MUSTFIX, this should be written somewhere, and bugs should be reported, against all almost all package that ship something in /etc/profile.d/ (In reply to comment #8) Further issues: - The *-devel package ships /usr/include/CORE IMO, this directory name is too general. CGAL-3.2.1 ships CORE-1.7, http://www.cs.nyu.edu/exact/core_pages/intro.html This directory is from CORE. And? This doesn't answer my remark. I do not see any solution, here. CORE/...h is the documented way to include CORE headers. If this is a blocker, CORE cannot be into Fedora. That's it. - A more general design problem: Some headers in /usr/include/CGAL hard-code configuration-time detected * system features, e.g. the version of zlib and Qt * compiler characteristics, e.g. endianness. Yes, it should only be /usr/include/CGAL/compiler_config.h. Is it a blocker? Well, there actually are 2 issues with this. - Package dependencies. You will have to find a way to handle the hard-coded version dependencies in rpm. Actually, these version macros are not used in CGAL. They are not even documented. They could be pruned. They are used by the CGAL test suite to display dependencies' versions. -- 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
[Bug 199168] Review Request: CGAL
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: CGAL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199168 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-16 06:35 EST --- For computation package like this one I think it is much better to keep the static libraries, since the usual reasons for not having static libraries don't hold, while it is very convenient to be able to link models statically to run them on any linux. -- 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
[Bug 199168] Review Request: CGAL
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: CGAL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199168 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-16 06:41 EST --- (In reply to comment #10) (In reply to comment #9) Actions(In reply to comment #7) E: CGAL-devel script-without-shellbang /etc/profile.d/cgal.sh E: CGAL-devel script-without-shellbang /etc/profile.d/cgal.csh As far as I know, these rpmlint errors should be ignored. Nope, these scripts are incomplete. MUSTFIX This is really an ignorable error. These files are sourced and not executed. Most of the files in /etc/profile.d don't have a shebang. - Static libs: upstream libcore++. I know that static libraries should be avoided as far as possible, in Fedora. Is the upstream devs choice a sufficient reason? Formally not, but it's sufficient reason for me not to approve a package and to classify a package's quality as low ;) Although it would be preferable to have dynamic libraries, it is important in my view to have static library for computational packages too, in order to be able to build statically compiled executables to be able to run on any linux. -- 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
[Bug 199168] Review Request: CGAL
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: CGAL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199168 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-16 16:22 EST --- Taucs suffers the static-only-libs problem too. And its build/config system is really strange. Let us see if CGAL can be include in FE, then I will handle Taucs as a further step (CGAL libraries do not depend on Taucs: only the templates library, in headers, do). -- 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
[Bug 199168] Review Request: CGAL
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: CGAL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199168 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 04:17 EST --- Sorry. The url is there: Spec URL: http://www.di.ens.fr/~rineau/Fedora/CGAL-3.2.1-13.fc5.src.rpm SRPM URL: http://www.di.ens.fr/~rineau/Fedora/CGAL.spec I am thinking about simplifying the spec file. Tell me what you think about it. -- 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
[Bug 199168] Review Request: CGAL
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: CGAL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199168 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 10:52 EST --- Hi Laurent, thanks for fixing the URL! I grabbed the SRPM and am looking through it. I agree with you that it would be a very good idea to cleanup the spec file and remove all the bits that are unnecessary for Fedora Extras (eg. all the internal_release, prefix, build_doc, etc. macros). As soon as you have a slimmed-down SRPM available, please post it and I'll start doing a thorough 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
[Bug 199168] Review Request: CGAL
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: CGAL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199168 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-15 18:57 EST --- Update: Spec URL: http://www.di.ens.fr/~rineau/Fedora/CGAL-3.2.1-14.fc5.src.rpm SRPM URL: http://www.di.ens.fr/~rineau/Fedora/CGAL.spec I have pruned the spec files from non Fedora stuff. I eventually admit that the spec file is complicated enough, even now: the %install stage is quite complicated, as the upstream installation process is not yet well adapted to Fedora Extras requirements. -- 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
[Bug 199168] Review Request: CGAL
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: CGAL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199168 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-16 01:06 EST --- I must be missing something very basic: # rpm -qlp CGAL-3.2.1-14.i386.rpm /usr/share/doc/CGAL-3.2.1 /usr/share/doc/CGAL-3.2.1/LICENSE /usr/share/doc/CGAL-3.2.1/LICENSE.FREE_USE /usr/share/doc/CGAL-3.2.1/LICENSE.LGPL /usr/share/doc/CGAL-3.2.1/LICENSE.QPL /usr/share/doc/CGAL-3.2.1/README.Fedora This doesn't look like a reasonable packaging to me. Also: # rpmlint CGAL-*3.2.1-14.i386.rpm E: CGAL devel-dependency CGAL-devel E: CGAL no-binary W: CGAL-devel no-dependency-on CGAL E: CGAL-devel file-in-usr-marked-as-conffile /usr/share/CGAL/make/makefile E: CGAL-devel script-without-shellbang /etc/profile.d/cgal.sh E: CGAL-devel script-without-shellbang /etc/profile.d/cgal.csh -- 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
[Bug 199168] Review Request: CGAL
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: CGAL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199168 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-02 03:50 EST --- 1/ I know that static libraries should be avoided, when possible (see my not in comment #1). In that case, the upstream developpers do not provide shared library for libCGALQt.a and libcore++.a. For libcore++, I could package Core separately (http://www.cs.nyu.edu/exact/core/download/core_v1.7/). But, for libCGALQt.a, do you see a solution? Waiting for the next release which could have shared version for all libraries cannot be a solution: CGAL releases come each year. It was really a chance that I manage to make the documention files removed from the upstream tarball of CGAL-3.2.1 (for license issues). 2/ As regards the macros... yes I know. This spec file is configurable, so that it can be applied to internal release of CGAL as well. What do you mean by redefining name of version or release? If I am not wrong, the conditionals make them be defined only once. If reviewers agreed that it is two much, I will pruned the spec file to remove the macro, as if the default values were hard-coded. 3/ For the upstream source tarball, I do not understand your point. spectool (from package fedora-rpmdevtools) can understand the macros and give the full URLs. I know pretty well the packaging guidelines. Please give me pointers to paragraphs that I could have missed. -- 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
[Bug 199168] Review Request: CGAL
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: CGAL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199168 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-01 17:36 EST --- static linking is highly frowned upon http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines for more info developer laziness is generally not considered a good enough reason. Looking at the sepc all those macros make the spec file confusing. Dont redefine name version and release. you need full urls to the upstream source tarball. I really sugegst reading the packaging guidelines and doing some work on them -- 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
