FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 11-07-2008, 01:22 PM
Matthias Clasen
 
Default libgnomecanvas owns %{_libdir}/libglade

On Fri, 2008-11-07 at 17:43 +0530, Debarshi Ray wrote:
> >> I need to put a symlink in %{_libdir}/libglade/2.0/ [1] and found that
> >> it is libgnomecanvas that owns it and not libglade in Fedora 9.
> >>
> >> [rishi@freebook ~]$ rpm -qf /usr/lib64/libglade/
> >> libgnomecanvas-2.20.1.1-2.fc9.x86_64
> >> [rishi@freebook ~]$
> >>
> >> Is this how it is supposed to be? Or is this a bug?
>
> > Neither libglade nor libglade-devel include the %{_libdir}/libglade
> > directory or anything within it.
>
> Maybe I was not very clear. I used "libglade" to mean the any of the
> libglade packages -- 1.0 and 2.0.
>
> My main objective is to know whether a package that is going to put a
> symlink in %{_libdir}/libglade/2.0/ would need to have 'Requires:
> libgnomecanvas' because, if not anything, it looks a bit odd to me
> since it looks related to libglade.


It would probably be better if libglade2 owned %{libdir}/libglade and
%{libdir}/libglade/2.0. Can you take care of that ?

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 11-07-2008, 03:04 PM
"Debarshi Ray"
 
Default libgnomecanvas owns %{_libdir}/libglade

> It would probably be better if libglade2 owned %{libdir}/libglade and
> %{libdir}/libglade/2.0. Can you take care of that ?

Sure. :-) This is just what I wanted to know.

Mamoru, thanks for your bit too. :-)

Cheers,
Debarshi

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 11-08-2008, 06:01 PM
"Debarshi Ray"
 
Default libgnomecanvas owns %{_libdir}/libglade

> It would probably be better if libglade2 owned %{libdir}/libglade and
> %{libdir}/libglade/2.0. Can you take care of that ?

I made the changes in Rawhide. Can we have the fix in Fedora 9 & 10 as
updates? Fedora 8 would be a bit too much, I guess?

Cheerio,
Debarshi

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 11-08-2008, 06:15 PM
Matthias Clasen
 
Default libgnomecanvas owns %{_libdir}/libglade

On Sun, 2008-11-09 at 00:31 +0530, Debarshi Ray wrote:
> > It would probably be better if libglade2 owned %{libdir}/libglade and
> > %{libdir}/libglade/2.0. Can you take care of that ?
>
> I made the changes in Rawhide. Can we have the fix in Fedora 9 & 10 as
> updates? Fedora 8 would be a bit too much, I guess?
>

If you do the builds, I won't object...

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 11-08-2008, 07:24 PM
"Debarshi Ray"
 
Default libgnomecanvas owns %{_libdir}/libglade

>> > It would probably be better if libglade2 owned %{libdir}/libglade and
>> > %{libdir}/libglade/2.0. Can you take care of that ?

>> I made the changes in Rawhide. Can we have the fix in Fedora 9 & 10 as
>> updates? Fedora 8 would be a bit too much, I guess?

> If you do the builds, I won't object...

Tagged and built for F-8, F-9 and F-10 now. I put in a versioned
Requires on libglade2 in libgnomecanvas to avoid %{_libdir}/libglade
from becoming unowned if someone only updated libgnomecanvas. However
I did not bump the BuildRequires on libglade2-devel since the new
libglade2 packages are not yet in the buildroots and the directory
issue won't make any difference.

Thanks,
Debarshi

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 11-14-2008, 04:42 PM
"Debarshi Ray"
 
Default libgnomecanvas owns %{_libdir}/libglade

>>> I made the changes in Rawhide. Can we have the fix in Fedora 9 & 10 as
>>> updates? Fedora 8 would be a bit too much, I guess?

>> If you do the builds, I won't object...

> Tagged and built for F-8, F-9 and F-10 now. I put in a versioned
> Requires on libglade2 in libgnomecanvas to avoid %{_libdir}/libglade
> from becoming unowned if someone only updated libgnomecanvas. However
> I did not bump the BuildRequires on libglade2-devel since the new
> libglade2 packages are not yet in the buildroots and the directory
> issue won't make any difference.

Just a gentle reminder. Did you push the updates in Bodhi?

Thanks,
Debarshi

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

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 12:54 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org