[Bug 2237] Homer - live conferencing and more
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2237
--- Comment #3 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com> 2012-03-23 10:34:52 CET ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Homer.src: W: invalid-url Source0: Homer-Source.tar.bz2
> Since this is released code, it could retrieved using the sourceforge URL See
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Sourceforge.net
Homer use not conventional url, I explain that in comment into the spec file.
Not true, it's accessible using sourceforge download URL:s, nothing strange
with them (although they don't exactly match the recipe in the link).
> Homer-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources
> You must fix this. The cause is probably that the source is stripped by the
> standard make. Most likely, this error will disappear when you fix the
> compiler flags according to
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags. I'm not
> sure, but out of the top of my head cmake honors the classical CFLAGS/CPPFLAGS
> environment variables, which should make it reasonably easy to fix this.
Homer use non conventional cmake compilation process. The developer prefer to
use standard make to call cmake to build the binary files.
You must anyway fix this. You must apply %{optflags} as described in the link,
and the empty debug package (which hopefully disappears once you fix this) is
also a blocker.
In the end, this might force you to patch the build files. However, I suspect
you can handle it using environment variables such as CCFLAGS and CPPFLAGS.
> libHomer.x86_64: E: invalid-soname
/usr/lib64/libHomerConference.so
> These are trickier. Basically, rmplint complains because homer installs
> libraries among the public libraries without proper so-names. I'm somewhat
> worried about this, especially for libHomer.so. Does it need to be versioned?
> Anyone, out there?
I don't know ho to resolve this issue...for me can be ignored...
To be frank, I don't know if it can be ignored, although I think it might be
the case. Leaving this to whoever reviews this.
> Other remarks:
> Since you use desktop-file-install, the desktop-file-validate is not needed and
> can be removed
I follow the example reported in wiki page:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Desktop_files
No you don't, it clearly says desktop-file-install OR desktop-file-validate.
> IMHO it would be good to decrease the noise by removing comments
such as
> "Add .desktop file".
The comments are problems? Sorry...I like comments to understand better what I
do in the spec file...
I don't agree in this specific case, but this is a personal thing. Feel
comfortable with you package.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.