On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 05:18:16PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > Would you help me to get things set up so I can do this? The server all of > > my non-Mac builds run on happens to be a Ubuntu system. Is that an issue? > > Can I push things into copr from Ubuntu or do I need to be on Fedora? > > I can always setup a VM... > > Copr can be used from any system but you would need a way to generate the srpm > so Fedora might be nicer.
I'll set up a VM for that then. I guess this was one of the things I really liked about using OBS - I can push the changes from my Ubuntu server and OBS then does its thing :-) > I already have a repo on copr (that I should give more love to), maybe we can > start by re-using it. It should also provide a good base to see what needs to > be > done to get subsurface working on F23. I'll be happy to use that. I'd love to have the ability to push changes into that (at least for daily builds) - this makes my life easier. > > > The easiest action for me would be that we modify our "forks" to allow to > > > install them in parallel to the normal ones. > > > > That's already done with libssrfmarble - it happily coexists with libmarble. > > Cool, then I'll just see at packaging libssrfmarble :) That should be straight forward. Let me know if you run into issues and as always - patches welcome. This is a bit of an unloved step child. I keep wanting to make this better and keeping running out of time and out of steam. > > So far I hadn't done that for libdivecomputer as we usually just linked > > against that statically (actually, I'm not sure that's true for all of our > > builds, but it should be true for all of our Linux builds). > > Being able to say: these patches have all been submitted upstream would be > nice. > Since I maintain the package and it's already in Fedora, it would not need to > be > reviewed so I could just include the patches and make a new release, but I'd > prefer to be able to say that the patches added and being incorporated > upstream. I'm sure Jef will love it if I once again push the changes to his mailing list. Let me talk to him, first. I will create clean patches and file bugs in his trac. > > > libgit2 in Fedora 23 is already at 0.23.0, if they do not build it against > > > libcurl we should ask them, should be doable. > > > > Yes that would be important - that's the only way that libgit2 works > > behind a reverse-proxy firewall (so the typical corporate environment > > where you can't connect to http/https directly but have to go through a > > proxy. That's only in 0.23 and only if built against libcurl. > > http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/libgit2.git/tree/libgit2.spec this is the > current specfile. > I don't see a reference to libcurl, is it done automatically? > If not, do you want to report the issue on bugzilla.redhat.com or shall I? Hard to tell :-) So the cmake file for libgit2 will default to looking for libcurl if it is installed. But since it isn't listed as a build requirement I'm not sure if it is installed or not - i.e., do any of the other build requirements happen to pull in libcurl-devel? I don't know. It might be nice to explicitly request it which would ensure that this works. /D _______________________________________________ subsurface mailing list [email protected] http://lists.subsurface-divelog.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/subsurface
