http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=124 --- Comment #2 from Sergio Pascual <sergio.pasra(a)gmail.com&gt; 2008-11-10 20:09:16 --- Well, pgplot is unmaintained. I can't send my patches to anyone. My only interest in packaging this software is that there exist lots of applications that use this library and rpm & yum make the life of the scientists installing this a lot more easier. The rpm package is also old and there are things that can be made a lot better now. A bunch of the patches were to enable different drivers. I have modified the spec to use sed instead. One of the two extra sources was a set of documents and images extracted from the webpage, I have removed them. The other source was a set of m4 macros to detect pgplot and cpgplot. I have substituted it with pkg-config macros, I think that are a lot better to maintain and write (I did never understand m4...) Here are my updated files: http://guaix.fis.ucm.es/~spr/pgplot.spec http://guaix.fis.ucm.es/~spr/pgplot-5.2.2-23.fc9.src.rpm Thanks, Sergio -- Configure bugmail: http://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.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=124 Orcan Ogetbil <orcanbahri(a)yahoo.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|2 |3 Alias| |pgplot AssignedTo|rpmfusion-package- |orcanbahri(a)yahoo.com |review(a)rpmfusion.org | --- Comment #4 from Orcan Ogetbil <orcanbahri(a)yahoo.com&gt; 2008-11-11 08:24:31 --- I saw the copyright.notice file in the original tarball. Please ignore the previous message. The package is in good shape. Let us go through a few minor things: * rpmlint says: pgplot.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/libcpgplot.so.5.2.2 0775 pgplot.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/libpgplot.so.5.2.2 0775 pgplot-tk.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/libtkpgplot.so.5.2.2 0775 These need fixed (to 755) * Please package the Changelog files. If you want, you can concatenate them with something like (for i in $(find . -name "ver*.txt" |sort -r); do cat $i; done) > ChangeLog * We prefer defattr(-,root,root,-) * Please make use of macros extensively and consistenly, especially the %{name} macro, also e.g. %{__rm} -rf %{buildroot} in one line and rm -fr %{buildroot} on the other breaks consistency. ! Parallel make must be supported whenever possible. Write a comment on the spec file if parallel make is not supported. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Parallel_make * Don't we need to put the copyright notice to all the subpackages, as is told by the copyright notice itself? * You are supplying external .pc files. I don't understand why you're editing (sed'ding) them again. * Everything that is in the %build section until the "./makemake" line should be moved into %prep . * Definitions such as %define lvfull 5.2.2 %define lvmajor 5 are usually put to the very beginning of the SPEC file. At least, somewhere closer to the Version tag. By the way, %{version} = %{lvfull} = 5.2.2 . Why are you defining the same thing twice? I think you should do something like: %define lvmajor 5 Name: pgplot Version: 5.2.2 ... and then use %{version} below instead of %{lvfull}. * The tcl conventions have changed in Fedora 9. Please follow: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Tcl see naming, installation locations etc. -- Configure bugmail: http://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.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=124 --- Comment #6 from Orcan Ogetbil <orcanbahri(a)yahoo.com&gt; 2008-11-11 15:48:24 --- (In reply to comment #5) I see that you are just inserting the %{_libdir} macro evaluated. I think it is fine then. I read this paragraph on the guidelines (towards the bottom): arch-specific packages can be generally grouped into three categories: those that provide a shell, those that provide a fooConfig.sh file and a shared library for linking, and those that only provide a shared library for dlopen(). OK, you might be right (I am -kind of- ignorant when it comes to tcl/tk), but doesn't this package belong to the third category ? And, then why are you explicitly requiring tk? rpmbuild picks some tcl/tk dependencies by itself. Aren't those enough? Please explain. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=124 --- Comment #8 from Orcan Ogetbil <orcanbahri(a)yahoo.com&gt; 2008-11-12 16:10:57 --- Thank you, I have two last things to ask. * Doesn't this clause from the TCL guidelines apply for this package: "If the extension does not provide a fooConfig.sh file, then the shared library must not be installed directly in %{_libdir} , but in the package-specific installation directory in %{tcl_sitearch} instead. This may require a patch to update the extension's pkgIndex.tcl file to look for the shared library in the correct location." * Whenever we provide "something" we tend to give as much information as possible, e.g. EVR. I think for the Provides in tcl* packages you should add "-%{release}" to the end. This isn't a rule but rather a general convention. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=124 --- Comment #10 from Orcan Ogetbil <orcanbahri(a)yahoo.com&gt; 2008-11-13 02:27:40 --- (In reply to comment #9) That's where I get confused. It says when the fooConfig.sh is missing the shared library must *not* be installed in %{_libdir}, but right now it *is* installed in %{_libdir} . Where is the catch? -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=124 Orcan Ogetbil <orcanbahri(a)yahoo.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|3 |4 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #12 from Orcan Ogetbil <orcanbahri(a)yahoo.com&gt; 2008-11-13 03:19:13 --- I see now. Thanks for taking care of everything. You may ask for CVS now. ------------------------------------------------------------ This package pglot is APPROVED for rpmfusion-nonfree by oget ------------------------------------------------------------ 26 is a number that I like as a string theorist. I think it is a good release number for such a package. :) -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=124 Sergio Pascual <sergio.pasra(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |33 --- Comment #14 from Sergio Pascual <sergio.pasra(a)gmail.com&gt; 2008-11-13 08:42:47 --- For astrophysicists, 42 is a good number also :) Thanks Orcan! Package CVS request ====================== Package Name: pgpplot Short Description: Graphic library for making simple scientific graphs Owners: sergiopr Branches: F-10 F-9 InitialCC: ---------------------- License tag: nonfree -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=124 --- Comment #16 from Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at&gt; 2008-11-14 06:02:46 --- That was one p too many. ;-) -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=124 Joachim Frieben <jfrieben(a)hotmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jfrieben(a)hotmail.com Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED Resolution|FIXED | --- Comment #18 from Joachim Frieben <jfrieben(a)hotmail.com&gt; 2008-11-18 11:07:04 --- Since there is no component pgplot in Bugzilla yet, let me add a current issue here: When running an application making use of PGPLOT and choosing output device /XWINDOW, no output will happen unless pgxwin_server* has been launched in advance by the user. Instead, the following error message is displayed: "Graphics device/type (? to see list, default /xwin): PGPLOT /xw: Couldn't find program "pgxwin_server" in the directory named PGPLOT /xw: in your PGPLOT_DIR environment variable, or in any directory PGPLOT /xw: listed in your PATH environment variable." This behaviour can be avoided by ensuring that pgxwin_server is found in the current PATH. Traditionally, figdisp* and pgxwin_server* used to live in /usr/bin/ or similar. In this case, they are launched automatically, e.g. when pgdemo1 is invoked. Currently, only /usr/libexec/pgplot/pgxwin_server is provided by pgplot-5.2.2-27.fc10, but this choice does not do the job unless /usr/libexec/pgplot is added to PATH explicitly. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 11:07:05 +0100, RPM Fusion Bugzilla wrote: Then somebody fix the owners.list file.

On 18.11.2008 13:19, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: Just looked closer -- that change was wrong afaics (and thus reverted). Does somebody see what's wrong with the entry in owner.list? Fedora|pgplot|Graphic library for making simple scientific graphs|sergio.parsa(a)gmail.com|| CU knurd P.S.:Sorry for the noise, but the bug is a bit confusing...

My email is wrong. The line should be Fedora|pgplot|Graphic library for making simple scientific graphs|sergio.pasra(a)gmail.com|| parsa -> pasra On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info&gt; wrote:

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=124 Sergio Pascual <sergio.pasra(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|REOPENED |RESOLVED Resolution| |FIXED --- Comment #21 from Sergio Pascual <sergio.pasra(a)gmail.com&gt; 2008-11-18 15:22:05 --- I'm closing the bug, now there's a pgplot component in bugzilla. Please resubmit this in a new bug report. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=124 Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |4 -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=124 Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|33 | --- Comment #23 from Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info&gt; 2009-05-03 14:58:35 --- (In reply to comment #22) done -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.