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 226053
| Summary: | Merge Review: libusb | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Ralf Corsepius <rc040203> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | jnovy |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | rc040203:
fedora-review+
|
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2007-11-29 04:52:25 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: | 163779 | ||
|
Description
Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
2007-01-31 19:28:24 UTC
* Doesn't build on FC6 due to some issues related to it's docs (docbook):
...
jade -t sgml -d ./website.dsl\#html ./manual.sgml
jade:./website.dsl:2:95:W: cannot generate system identifier for public text
"-//Norman Walsh//DOCUMENT DocBook HTML Stylesheet//EN"
...
* The spec contains all kind of odd auto*-related hacks.
AFAICS, all these are superfluous if
"make DESTDIR="${RPM_OPT_FLAGS}" install"
was used.
* Package contains static libs.
Seems to be caused by a missing openjade BuildRequires. Builds fine for me after adding the BR in the freshly created rawhide chroot installed with minimal dependencies on i386. You are still using this auto* hacks - why?
You should be able to condense all this into:
%build
%configure --disable-static
make
%install
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
make DESTDIR=${RPM_BUILD_ROOT} install
rm -f $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}/*.la
Yeah, I can remove the autofoo stuff, but I'm not sure about removing the libusb static library. libusb is low-level enough that someone would really wish to link against libusb statically, so how about introducing libusb-static package shipping static stuff? Simply removing the static libs completely now as you propose is no a good way to follow. (In reply to comment #5) > I'm not sure about removing the libusb > static library. I can't imagine any reason for needing the static libs, so I am highly in favor of removing them. Nevertheless, introducing *-static would be a compromize, to force those deps on static libs to become apparent and give those packages more time to move to shared libs rsp. to provide a precendence for a case in which static libs are required. Please check the latest libusb (7.fc7). I added the static subpackage there. Sorry, on fc6, building still fails with the jade/docbook error reported in #1. Did you try to build this package for fc6? Yes, I tried to build the rawhide libusb on FC6 and it failed in the documentation generation phase because of some jade inconsistency. The question is whether this is related to merge review as we focus on F7 here. Sorry, I don't have a rawhide system installed. => Somebody else will have to take over the review. Ralf, thanks for your comments and review. Maybe mock will help you here to do a rawhide build if you are still interested. Now, things are getting interesting ... ATM, *-7.src.rpm doesn't fail in an fc6-mock, but it fails in a normal user environment ... <confused/> /me suspects some jade config clashes caused by updates (In reply to comment #13) > /me suspects some jade config clashes caused by updates Probably, I found my sgml/xml catalogs were broken ;) Package builds fine under FC6 and FC7 now, unfortunately between all these "proposals", I've lost oversight on what the current way is to approve a package. APPROVED Thanks! Housekeeping, seems as if this PR should have been closed long time ago, but got lost during the transition to flagged reviews. |