>>>>> "XL" == Xavier Lamien writes:

XL> On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 4:14 PM, drago01 <drago01@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Tryed to rebuild beagle in rawhide failed with:
>> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=696312&name=build.log
>>

XL> Fixed, Could you give a try with those packages
XL> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=696567

I have the same issue with compiling f-spot:

configure: error: Package requirements (libgnome-2.0 >= 2.2
libgnomeui-2.0 >= 2.2 libexif >= 0.5.7 libexif < 0.7.0 glade-sharp-2.0 >= 2.8 gnome-vfs-sharp-2.0 >= 2.8 gtk+-2.0 >= 2.6 mono >= 1.1.7 mono-cairo >= 1.2.4) were not met:
Variable 'libdir' not defined in '/usr/lib64/pkgconfig/gnome-vfs-sharp-2.0.pc'

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=696144

Since the version of gnome-sharp in rawhide is already broken, can you
just do a standard (non-scratch) build of gnome-sharp so it available
for other packages to build against?

Otherwise you'd need to download the scratch build, and do a local
mock build and replace the gnome-sharp package locally which is a bit
of pain.

Thanks,
Alex

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 10:45 PM, Alex Lancaster <alexl@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:

>>>>> "XL" == Xavier Lamien *writes:



XL> On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 4:14 PM, drago01 <drago01@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Tryed to rebuild beagle in rawhide failed with:

>> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=696312&name=build.log

>>



XL> Fixed, Could you give a try with those packages

XL> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=696567



I have the same issue with compiling f-spot:



configure: error: Package requirements (libgnome-2.0 >= 2.2

libgnomeui-2.0 >= 2.2 libexif >= 0.5.7 libexif < 0.7.0 glade-sharp-2.0 >= 2.8 gnome-vfs-sharp-2.0 >= 2.8 gtk+-2.0 >= 2.6 mono >= 1.1.7 mono-cairo >= 1.2.4) were not met:

Variable 'libdir' not defined in '/usr/lib64/pkgconfig/gnome-vfs-sharp-2.0.pc'



http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=696144



Since the version of gnome-sharp in rawhide is already broken, can you

just do a standard (non-scratch) build of gnome-sharp so it available

for other packages to build against?

*Done


--
Xavier.t Lamien
--
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/XavierLamien
GPG-Key ID: F3903DEB

Fingerprint: 0F2A 7A17 0F1B 82EE FCBF 1F51 76B7 A28D F390 3DEB
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

>>>>> "XL" == Xavier Lamien writes:

[...]

>> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=696144

>> Since the version of gnome-sharp in rawhide is already broken, can
>> you just do a standard (non-scratch) build of gnome-sharp so it
>> available for other packages to build against?

XL> Done

Xavier, thanks. That fixes the .pc file issue, but f-spot still won't
compile against gnome-sharp-2.20, because for some reason it doesn't
provide gtkhtml anymore:

checking for GTKHTML_SHARP...
configure: error: Package requirements (gtkhtml-sharp-3.14 >= 2.19.90)
were not met: No package 'gtkhtml-sharp-3.14' found

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=697279&name=build.log

Looking at the provides for the new package. It appears that gtkhtml
is now longer provided.

gnome-sharp = 2.20.0-2.fc10
libgnomesharpglue-2.so
mono(art-sharp) = 2.20.0.0
mono(gconf-sharp) = 2.20.0.0
mono(gconf-sharp-peditors) = 2.20.0.0
mono(gconfsharp-schemagen) = 0.0.0.0
mono(gnome-sharp) = 2.20.0.0
mono(gnome-vfs-sharp) = 2.20.0.0
mono(policy.2.16.art-sharp) = 0.0.0.0
mono(policy.2.16.gconf-sharp) = 0.0.0.0
mono(policy.2.16.gconf-sharp-peditors) = 0.0.0.0
mono(policy.2.16.gnome-sharp) = 0.0.0.0
mono(policy.2.16.gnome-vfs-sharp) = 0.0.0.0
mono(policy.2.4.art-sharp) = 0.0.0.0
mono(policy.2.4.gconf-sharp) = 0.0.0.0
mono(policy.2.4.gconf-sharp-peditors) = 0.0.0.0
mono(policy.2.4.gnome-sharp) = 0.0.0.0
mono(policy.2.4.gnome-vfs-sharp) = 0.0.0.0
mono(policy.2.6.art-sharp) = 0.0.0.0
mono(policy.2.6.gconf-sharp) = 0.0.0.0
mono(policy.2.6.gconf-sharp-peditors) = 0.0.0.0
mono(policy.2.6.gnome-sharp) = 0.0.0.0
mono(policy.2.6.gnome-vfs-sharp) = 0.0.0.0
mono(policy.2.8.art-sharp) = 0.0.0.0
mono(policy.2.8.gconf-sharp) = 0.0.0.0
mono(policy.2.8.gconf-sharp-peditors) = 0.0.0.0
mono(policy.2.8.gnome-sharp) = 0.0.0.0
mono(policy.2.8.gnome-vfs-sharp) = 0.0.0.0

(http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=647543)

Is this intentional? Or gtkhtml now provided by a different package?
In the 2.16 gnome-sharp package gtkhtml was provided:

gnome-sharp = 2.16.1-3.fc10
libgnomesharpglue-2.so
libvtesharpglue-2.so
mono(art-sharp) = 2.16.0.0
mono(gconf-sharp) = 2.16.0.0
mono(gconf-sharp-peditors) = 2.16.0.0
mono(gconfsharp-schemagen) = 0.0.0.0
mono(gnome-sharp) = 2.16.0.0
mono(gnome-vfs-sharp) = 2.16.0.0
mono(gtkhtml-sharp) = 2.16.0.0
mono(policy.2.4.art-sharp) = 0.0.0.0
mono(policy.2.4.gconf-sharp) = 0.0.0.0
mono(policy.2.4.gconf-sharp-peditors) = 0.0.0.0
mono(policy.2.4.gnome-sharp) = 0.0.0.0
mono(policy.2.4.gnome-vfs-sharp) = 0.0.0.0
mono(policy.2.4.gtkhtml-sharp) = 0.0.0.0
mono(policy.2.4.rsvg-sharp) = 0.0.0.0
mono(policy.2.4.vte-sharp) = 0.0.0.0
mono(policy.2.6.art-sharp) = 0.0.0.0
mono(policy.2.6.gconf-sharp) = 0.0.0.0
mono(policy.2.6.gconf-sharp-peditors) = 0.0.0.0
mono(policy.2.6.gnome-sharp) = 0.0.0.0
mono(policy.2.6.gnome-vfs-sharp) = 0.0.0.0
mono(policy.2.6.gtkhtml-sharp) = 0.0.0.0
mono(policy.2.6.rsvg-sharp) = 0.0.0.0
mono(policy.2.6.vte-sharp) = 0.0.0.0
mono(policy.2.8.art-sharp) = 0.0.0.0
mono(policy.2.8.gconf-sharp) = 0.0.0.0
mono(policy.2.8.gconf-sharp-peditors) = 0.0.0.0
mono(policy.2.8.gnome-sharp) = 0.0.0.0
mono(policy.2.8.gnome-vfs-sharp) = 0.0.0.0
mono(policy.2.8.gtkhtml-sharp) = 0.0.0.0
mono(policy.2.8.rsvg-sharp) = 0.0.0.0
mono(policy.2.8.vte-sharp) = 0.0.0.0
mono(rsvg-sharp) = 2.16.0.0
mono(vte-sharp) = 2.16.0.0

(http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=601424)

If gtkhtml-sharp isn't packaged we need to get it into review pronto.

Alex


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

2008/7/5 Alex Lancaster <alexl@users.sourceforge.net>:




If gtkhtml-sharp isn't packaged we need to get it into review pronto.
Agreed, provide me with the review ticket and I will waste no time. I am happy to see work going on to improve Mono on Fedora.

*

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

>>>>> "AL" == Alex Lancaster writes:

[...]

AL> Is this intentional? Or gtkhtml now provided by a different
AL> package? In the 2.16 gnome-sharp package gtkhtml was provided:
AL> If gtkhtml-sharp isn't packaged we need to get it into review
AL> pronto.

OK, looking into the .spec file and the sources for gnome-sharp, it
seems that gtkhtml has been moved to a new package:
gnome-desktop-sharp.

This kind of things really should be noted in your %changelog as well
as in the spec file as it makes a big difference for other packages,
in addition the description:

%description
This package provides a library that allows you to build
fully native graphical GNOME applications using Mono. gnome-sharp
extends gtk-sharp2 and adds bindings for gconf, libgnome, gnome-vfs,
libart, gtkhtml, librsvg, and vte.

should be modified to remove gtkhtml and anything else that has been
moved into gnome-desktop-sharp.

This is why it's critical when you upgrade a core component of a mono
stack in a major API/ABI bump (e.g. from 2.16 -> 2.20) that it needs
to be announced in advance and co-ordinated amongst the set of
maintainers of the mono "stack". This is much like KDE, GNOME, the
whole stack needs to be updated as group because there is so much
intermodule dependencies.

Unfortunately (unlike GNOME) it appears that there are currently no
Red Hat engineers assigned to maintain the mono stack as a group
(probably because it isn't shipped in RHEL), nor is there a community
SIG like there is for KDE. So maintaining the core mono stack
currently seems to be done in an adhoc way, maintainer by maintainer,
package by package.

Alex

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

>>>>> "DN" == David Nielsen writes:

DN> 2008/7/5 Alex Lancaster <alexl@users.sourceforge.net>:
>>
>> If gtkhtml-sharp isn't packaged we need to get it into review
>> pronto.

DN> Agreed, provide me with the review ticket and I will waste no
DN> time. I am happy to see work going on to improve Mono on Fedora.

There's no package review for gnome-desktop-sharp (which is actually
where gtkhtml was moved to after 2.19/2.20) submitted by anyone as
yet. If you want to put together a package (I don't really use mono
myself much), I'll be happy to review it.

This package was created only after gnome-sharp-2.20 was released.
Source here:

http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/gnome/sources/gnome-desktop-sharp/2.20/

Alex

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

On Sat, Jul 5, 2008 at 3:46 AM, Alex Lancaster <alexl@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:

>>>>> "DN" == David Nielsen *writes:



DN> 2008/7/5 Alex Lancaster <alexl@users.sourceforge.net>:

>>

>> If gtkhtml-sharp isn't packaged we need to get it into review

>> pronto.



DN> Agreed, provide me with the review ticket and I will waste no

DN> time. I am happy to see work going on to improve Mono on Fedora.



There's no package review for gnome-desktop-sharp (which is actually

where gtkhtml was moved to after 2.19/2.20) submitted by anyone as

yet. *If you want to put together a package (I don't really use mono

myself much), I'll be happy to review it.



This package was created only after gnome-sharp-2.20 was released.

Source here:



http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/gnome/sources/gnome-desktop-sharp/2.20/



Correct,
gtkhtml has been removed from gnome-sharp and it is noted in the spec file as well but,
yeah not in the changelog, my bad to also forget added it in the changelog.

I'm already work to provide gnome-desktop-sharp quickly to fix this. the review request will be spawn in the next few hours.

Feel free to bug me on this.

--
Xavier.t Lamien

--
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/XavierLamien
GPG-Key ID: F3903DEB
Fingerprint: 0F2A 7A17 0F1B 82EE FCBF 1F51 76B7 A28D F390 3DEB
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

5. jul. 2008 08.16 skrev Xavier Lamien <laxathom@fedoraproject.org>:


Correct,
gtkhtml has been removed from gnome-sharp and it is noted in the spec file as well but,
yeah not in the changelog, my bad to also forget added it in the changelog.

I'm already work to provide gnome-desktop-sharp quickly to fix this. the review request will be spawn in the next few hours.

Feel free to bug me on this.

This would probably have been good information to have in the mail announcing this version bump so maintainers would have minimal trouble.


Regardless it seems to me that we are starting to need a Mono SIG to coordinate all this. I have previously offered free reviews for Mono packages, that offer still stands, I don't however feel I am a good maintainer so I would rather not take that role.

*

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

2008/7/5 David Nielsen <gnomeuser@gmail.com>:



5. jul. 2008 08.16 skrev Xavier Lamien <laxathom@fedoraproject.org>:



Correct,
gtkhtml has been removed from gnome-sharp and it is noted in the spec file as well but,
yeah not in the changelog, my bad to also forget added it in the changelog.

I'm already work to provide gnome-desktop-sharp quickly to fix this. the review request will be spawn in the next few hours.

Feel free to bug me on this.

This would probably have been good information to have in the mail announcing this version bump so maintainers would have minimal trouble.

Agreed
*


Regardless it seems to me that we are starting to need a Mono SIG to coordinate all this.
+1
*

I have previously offered free reviews for Mono packages, that offer still stands, I don't however feel I am a good maintainer so I would rather not take that role.
*

*Gnome-desktop-sharp is now available for review at :
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454134

it shipped with all optional assemblies (including nautilusburn, wnck, vte, etc)




--
Xavier.t Lamien
--
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/XavierLamien
GPG-Key ID: F3903DEB
Fingerprint: 0F2A 7A17 0F1B 82EE FCBF 1F51 76B7 A28D F390 3DEB
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list