Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 175500
Summary: | Review Request: compat-wxGTK & compat-wxPythonGTK2 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa> | ||||||
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Matthias Saou <matthias> | ||||||
Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | David Lawrence <dkl> | ||||||
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |||||||
Priority: | medium | ||||||||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | alex, fedora-package-review, joel.schaerer, mattdm, matthias, pertusus | ||||||
Target Milestone: | --- | ||||||||
Target Release: | --- | ||||||||
Hardware: | All | ||||||||
OS: | Linux | ||||||||
Whiteboard: | |||||||||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |||||||
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||||
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||||
Last Closed: | 2006-04-19 21:40:48 UTC | Type: | --- | ||||||
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- | ||||||
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |||||||
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |||||||
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |||||||
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |||||||
Embargoed: | |||||||||
Bug Depends On: | |||||||||
Bug Blocks: | 154618, 163779 | ||||||||
Attachments: |
|
Description
Tom "spot" Callaway
2005-12-11 23:47:46 UTC
These look pretty good (apart from the added tabs, when the spec files used spaces ;-)). Have you tried to modify and build some applications using them? (just to know if it'll be easy or not), like audacity for instance? If no one else steps up, I wouldn't mind reviewing the packages, but I'll need to do some further testing. Matthias -- by all means, please review. :) Packages that will need to have their spec file updated for the change : - audacity - bochs - comical - pgadmin3 - scorched3d I've only tested a rebuild of audacity, and it worked fine changing just : - The BuildRequires to add "compat-" - The %build section to add just before the %configure line : export WX_CONFIG="%{_bindir}/wx-2.4-config" Please consider applying the spec file patch I'll attach as it fixes many minor cosmetic issues in the spec file. It also changes to 755 the mode of the %ghost'ed script, so that rpmlint stops complaining. Created attachment 122410 [details]
Spec file patch
Created attachment 122411 [details]
Spec file patch
Since the patches only contain minor changes, I already approve both packages. I see these have been imported, but only compat-wxGTK bas been built in FC5, is that wanted? What about FC4? There's a conflict in the virtual Provides of the published packages! Currently both wxGTK-devel and compat-wxGTK2-devel as well as wxGTK and compat-wxGTK2 contain "Provides: wxGTK2-devel = some version" and "Provides: wxGTK2 = some version" This makes them competing packages. You cannot do this, as wxGTK and compat-wxGTK2 are _not_ equivalent. It causes RPM to let the newer version win, which results in removal of the packages with the older versions during installation or in a failed transaction check. compat-wxGTK2-devel is broken! $ wxgtk2-2.4-config --cflags -I/usr/lib/wx/include/gtk2-2.4 -DGTK_NO_CHECK_CASTS -D__WXGTK__ -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -D_LARGE_FILES It points to /usr/lib/wx/include/gtk2-2.4 but the compat-wxGTK2-devel package contains headers in a different path: /usr/lib/wx/include/gtk-2.4/wx/setup.h On the contrary, compat-wxGTK-devel is okay. Michael -- what's your advice for resolving comment #8? I'd not like to remove that from the main wxGTK package, but it seems necessary here.... Re: comment 9 --- compat-wxGTK.spec.~1.2.~ 2006-01-06 18:52:38.000000000 +0100 +++ compat-wxGTK.spec 2006-03-17 21:51:27.000000000 +0100 @@ -288,7 +288,7 @@ %ghost %{_bindir}/wx-2.4-config %{_bindir}/wxgtk2-*-config %{_libdir}/libwx_gtk2[-_]*.so -%{_libdir}/wx/include/gtk-2* +%{_libdir}/wx/include/gtk2-2* %files common -f wxstd.lang %defattr(-,root,root,-) Re: comment 10 Remove the Provides from the compat-wxGTK2{-devel} packages, but not from the new wxGTK{-devel} packages. Btw, compat-wxGTK{-devel} must not "Provides: wxGTK = ..." and "Provides: wxGTK-devel = ..." either. And then any packages which link against this must work just by virtue of the automatic library deps, and any which have explict requires statements must be fixed, yeah? > And then any packages which link against this must work just > by virtue of the automatic library deps That's how ordinary "compat-" packages work anyway. You let a _new_ compat- package provide the SONAMES needed by old binaries. The SONAME dependencies don't care which package contains the needed files. > and any which have explict requires statements must be > fixed, yeah? Those packages are broken by design. Same applies to BuildRequires and the current brokeness due to these "virtual provides" madness. A package which "BuildRequires: wxGTK2-devel" cannot be built with compat-wxGTK2-devel which "Provides: wxGTK2-devel" and vice versa. Make sense. And is ideal, because it's someone else's problem. *grin* Looks like compat-wxPythonGTK2 hasn't yet been built on devel or FC-5. Causes some problems like bug #188215. The specific code in bug #188215 (simply importing wxPython) should work fine with the new 2.6.x wxPython. When will the new packages be available? The code i would like to use is mainly incompatible with wx2.6, so the packages are going to be needed! As of today, i only see the old package: wxPythonGTK2.i386 2.4.2.4-7 extras in extras, and it doesn't work (cf bug #188215) New packages should now be available. Shouldn't package reviews be closed as NEXTRELEASE? Ehh. Semantics. I think of NEXTRELEASE as "FC-6" as opposed to "Immediately in repo", but I could see either being valid. They're built. That's what really matters, right? :) (In reply to comment #21) > Ehh. Semantics. > > I think of NEXTRELEASE as "FC-6" as opposed to "Immediately in repo", but I > could see either being valid. Sure, just wondering whether the process had changed. I was going off of step 14 of: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/NewPackageProcess > They're built. That's what really matters, right? :) Indeed, thank you. |