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 188430
Summary: | Review Request: gtk+ | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Rex Dieter <rdieter> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Ville Skyttä <scop> |
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | bugs.michael, mpeters |
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: | 2006-05-04 16:53:12 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: | 188429 | ||
Bug Blocks: | 163779 |
Description
Rex Dieter
2006-04-09 17:39:49 UTC
Please add any dependencies here so it is clear which order we need to approve and build things. Skimming diffs only so far, random findings or comments: - The %if "%{?fedora}" > "4" conditionals can be dropped for a FC6+ only package - %check belongs logically after %install, especially if you insist on keeping the "|| :" in it too to support old distro versions - Does the test suite work in "headless" build environments? What about mock? - Rationale for 444 perms for /etc/gtk/gtkrc? I believe 644 would do just fine - Possibly unowned %{_datadir}/themes dir (I haven't checked the dep tree) - specfile not UTF-8 (yes, gtk+ builds fine in mock, that's how I found out about the modular_x dependancies the hard way...) %changelog * Mon Apr 24 2006 Rex Dieter <rexdieter[AT]users.sf.net> 1:1.2.10-52 - install -m644 gtkrc ... - utf-8 specfile - comment %%fedora > 4 constructs - own %%_datadir/themes - move %%check after %%install Spec Name or Url: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/SPECS/gtk+-1.2.10-52.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/all/SRPMS.stable/gtk+-1.2.10-52.src.rpm Looks ok to me, just one final clarification: The no-undefined patch is there just to help ensure that no undefined non-weak symbols sneak out in the libs later? The gtkgdkdep patch already results in libgtk being linked with libgdk and takes care of them in this case, no? FWIW, in case you didn't notice, glib has some undefined symbols as well in libgmodule-1.2.so.0.0.10 and libgthread-1.2.so.0.0.10. Re: no-undefined patch. You're right. It's just to guarantee no future goofs. Re: glib undefined symbols... hmm... I thought I had checked that, but it appears I only checked libglib, not the others. Should be easy enough to fix. Are we a go here then (APPROVED)? Yep, approved, I just wanted to make sure I understand what the no-undefined patch is for. Thanks, imported (build pending buildsys/devel working again). |