A few comments :
 - autoreconf is traditionnaly done in %prep
 - why the versioned dependency on gnome-session ? 
 - why the versioned dependency on xorg-x11-server-Xorg ?
 - I've built it on FC-5 without the BuildRequires on gnome-desktop-devel,
control-center-devel and intltool >= 0.35. Are those really needed ? (I needed
to add startup-notification-devel though)

Created attachment 138022 [details]
Here's what I needed to change to build beryl-core on FC5.

*** Bug 192434 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Okay, pushed out a 0.1.1-2 build, which should include all the changes suggested
in comment #1 and #2. Most of the BR were inherited from the FC compiz build,
appears we don't need to be quite so strict for beryl.

http://wilsonet.com/packages/beryl/beryl-core.spec
http://wilsonet.com/packages/beryl/beryl-core-0.1.1-2.fc6.src.rpm

With the package above (after building and installing it and the other beryl
packages), X crashes when I start beryl. Where can I open a bug report about it ?

(In reply to comment #5)
> With the package above (after building and installing it and the other beryl
> packages), X crashes when I start beryl. Where can I open a bug report about it ?

http://bugs.beryl-project.org/

rpmlint has one small warning:
rpmlint beryl-core-devel-0.1.1-2.i386.rpm
W: beryl-core-devel no-documentation

I want to add that these packages work fine here. Also there are binaries 
available on the internet built with your srpms (I think), and they've already 
been accessed hundreds of times:
http://www.fedorablog.de/index.php?serendipity%5Bsubpage%5D=downloads&level=2&thiscat=7

I have just tested the packages on a fresh installation.
All work well after installing libXcomposite manually (it's requiere).

libXcomposite-devel and libXdamage-devel are requieres at build time for
beryl-core, beryl-plugins and beryl-settings.
 	
I also noticed that libwnck-devel is requiere by emerald.

In any event, these missing build requieres will be easily found by mock when
the packages are review. 

(In reply to comment #8)
> I have just tested the packages on a fresh installation.
> All work well after installing libXcomposite manually (it's requiere).
> 
> libXcomposite-devel and libXdamage-devel are requieres at build time for
> beryl-core, beryl-plugins and beryl-settings.
>  	
> I also noticed that libwnck-devel is requiere by emerald.
> 
> In any event, these missing build requieres will be easily found by mock when
> the packages are review. 

As it happens, I was just working on this very thing earlier today, and had already pushed out new 
builds of most components. Most of the packages were missing BR on libtool and gettext-devel as well. 
Didn't catch the libwnck-devel BR on emerald though, so I went back through clean mock builds on 
every package. I just finished building all the latest versions of the packages a bit ago, and all appear to 
have appropriate BuildRequires in place now.

Oh, I've also put together binaries for x86_64, i386 and ppc, for anyone that wants to play with them 
(along with a yum repo file, so folks can yum upgrade as new builds get pushed).

http://wilsonet.com/packages/beryl/beryl.repo

Re: comment #7, yeah, those look like they're built from my specs, heh. The W: about no-
documentation is ignorable (similar warning on emerald-devel).

Is it possible to go with this ?

 Requires:       gnome-desktop, control-center

If not, one who has install kde only will have to install all those dependencies
of the gnome-desktop.

(In reply to comment #10)
> Is it possible to go with this ?
> 
>  Requires:       gnome-desktop, control-center
> 
> If not, one who has install kde only will have to install all those dependencies
> of the gnome-desktop.

The current Requires: are:

Requires:       gnome-desktop, control-center
Requires:       xorg-x11-server-Xorg
Requires:       mesa-libGL >= 6.5-9
Requires:       system-logos, gnome-session

I suppose its perfectly logical to drop the xorg-x11-server-Xorg Requires:,
since gnome-desktop would pull it in. I want to leave the mesa-libGL requirement
in there. Up in the air about system-logos, since I don't think beryl actually
uses it for anything -- that probably got pulled over from compiz Requires:. I
presume the main beef you've got is with gnome-session, which does pull in a ton
of stuff, and really isn't a hard requirement for beryl. Okay, I think the
following Requires: works for me:

Requires:       gnome-desktop, control-center
Requires:       mesa-libGL >= 6.5-9

Sound good to others as well? I'll double-check the Reqs on the other packages
as well, will likely push new builds of everything later today...

Or did I misunderstand, and you wanted the gnome-desktop and control-center Reqs
dropped?

Or did I misunderstand, and you wanted the gnome-desktop and control-center Reqs
dropped? Actually, the more I think about it, reducing the Requires: down to
just mesa-libGL might make sense...

(In reply to comment #10)
> Is it possible to go with this ?


sorry typo!!

> Is it possible to go withOUT this ?

I just want to know whether these are really a requirement for beryl ?
Because to me user KDE don't want to install the gnome-desktop!

FYI, I'm running Beryl right now on KDE, without gnome-desktop (I removed it
from the spec file). It works perfectly, beryl-manager too.

Great :)

Jarod, could you update your repo as well so that all the people using your repo
can test them?

Yep, workin' on it right now...

Okay, updated binaries available for all three arches. There are also beryl-dbus
packages now as well.

Thanks for your effort, man. Do you have any idea when it will be finally pushed
to extras? It seems that version 0.1.2 was released recently, I hope you will
update your packages :-)

(In reply to comment #19)
> Thanks for your effort, man. Do you have any idea when it will be finally pushed
> to extras?

As soon as someone steps up to actually do all the necessary package reviews. :)

> It seems that version 0.1.2 was released recently, I hope you will
> update your packages :-)

Already working on it...

Is there any chance of keeping the 0.1.1 binary packages in the repository?

Since 0.1.1 was working great for me I had no worries that 0.1.2 would be just a
good, but it isn't and the bugs I am having are set to low priority.

I tried to get the old source rpms to compile without luck.

I'm sorry if this is the wrong venue for making this request.

(In reply to comment #21)
> Is there any chance of keeping the 0.1.1 binary packages in the repository?

Sorry, already nuked them.

> I tried to get the old source rpms to compile without luck.

They should all rebuild just fine with an 'rpmbuild --rebuild <pkg>.src.rpm',
and will tell you if you have missing build requirements. What seems to be the
trouble? Note that you may need to downgrade to beryl-core and beryl-core-devel
0.1.1 to build the rest of the packages.

> I'm sorry if this is the wrong venue for making this request.

Technically, this bug should only be for package review, but thus far, nobody's
really doing that...

Also, for reference to anyone who might actually do some review (*hint, hint*
:), the current latest spec and SRPM are here:

http://wilsonet.com/packages/beryl/beryl-core-0.1.2-1.fc6.src.rpm
http://wilsonet.com/packages/beryl/beryl-core.spec

About your spec: to me it seems fine, only one problem I saw there. You are a
bit outdated - source tarballs are available since 7. November. You can get them
here:
http://releases.beryl-project.org/0.1.2/

Rpmlint output:
E: beryl-core library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib/libberylsettings.so.0.0.0
E: beryl-core library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib/libberylsettings.so.0.0.0

You should add to your specfile %post and %postun sections. Something like this:
%post
/sbin/ldconfig

%postun
/sbin/ldconfig

and add requires:
Requires(post): /sbin/ldconfig
Requires(postun): /sbin/ldconfig

Remember but, that I am NOT a reviewer.

Okay, aquamarine, bdock, beryl-dbus, beryl-vidcap and heliodor have all been
submitted for review now as well:

aquamarine: bug 215563
bdock: bug 215564
beryl-dbus: bug 215568
beryl-vidcap: bug 215569
heliodor: bug 215571

(In reply to comment #23)
> About your spec: to me it seems fine, only one problem I saw there. You are a
> bit outdated - source tarballs are available since 7. November. You can get them
> here:
> http://releases.beryl-project.org/0.1.2/

Yep, look in my latest spec file, just haven't changed over to them yet. :)

> Rpmlint output:
> E: beryl-core library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib/libberylsettings.so.0.0.0
> E: beryl-core library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib/libberylsettings.so.0.0.0

Ugh. Stupid mistake that one. Will be fixed shortly...

Okay, -2 build uses upstream tarballs and adds the required ldconfig bits.

http://wilsonet.com/packages/beryl/beryl-core-0.1.2-2.fc6.src.rpm
http://wilsonet.com/packages/beryl/beryl-core.spec

I'll do a review.

/me cheers! :)

(and adds all the other beryl package reviews as being blocked by this bug).

MUST items:
!* rpmlint output:
W: beryl-core-devel no-documentation
 * package is named well
 * spec file name is good
 * package meets Packaging Guidelines
 * package is licensed with a GPL open-source compatible license 
 * License field in spec file matches actual license
 * license file is included in %doc
 * md5sums are matching (045aceb6e48e997c952d942fbe841e76)
 * package successfully compiles on x86_64
!* BuildRequires aren't listed well
 * no locales
 * proper %post and %postun sections 
 * not relocatable
 * package owns directories well
 * no duplicates in %files
 * every %files section includes %defattr
 * proper %clean section
 * macros used well
!* -devel package created well, but it should include documentation 

THINGS to do:
 * you have to remove libsvg-cairo-devel build dependency. Without it package
builds successfully and it is .dead since the day before yesterday:
http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/*checkout*/devel/libsvg-cairo/
dead.package?root=extras
 * in most cases rpmlint error should be omitted, but it looks like all man.3
pages have to go to -devel subpackage

Just remove libsvg-cairo-devel and change man3 location and package will be
approved.

(In reply to comment #28)
> THINGS to do:
>  * you have to remove libsvg-cairo-devel build dependency. Without it package
> builds successfully and it is .dead since the day before yesterday:
> http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/*checkout*/devel/libsvg-cairo/
> dead.package?root=extras

Done.

>  * in most cases rpmlint error should be omitted, but it looks like all man.3
> pages have to go to -devel subpackage

Done.

> Just remove libsvg-cairo-devel and change man3 location and package will be
> approved.

http://wilsonet.com/packages/beryl/beryl-core-0.1.2-3.fc6.src.rpm

It looks fine now.
I am very happy to approve it :)

Thanks much! Imported into cvs, building now... Will close once I've got an FC6
branch created and built also.

Had to figure out a build failure on ppc first (upstream tarball was littered
with little-endian .o files), then went and created beryl, beryl-gnome and
beryl-kde meta-packages that people will be able to install.

-Package beryl depends on bdock, beryl-gnome and beryl-kde
-Package beryl-gnome depends on all beryl bits except bdock and aquamarine
-Package berly-kde depends on all beryl bits except bdock and heliodor

Builds for devel are already complete, branching for FC-6 has been requested.

FC-6 builds also done, closing NEXTRELEASE.