[suggest] libcaca update

[Bjarne Saltbaek]

To RPMforge.

libcaca at RPMforge needs an update in order to compile VLC > 1.0.

I have attached a diff against
http://svn.rpmforge.net/svn/trunk/rpms/libcaca/libcaca.spec with the updated
package.


Regards,
Bjarne

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: libcaca.spec.diff
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 4629 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20100612/00c731ad/attachment.obj

[Yury V. Zaytsev]

Hi!

Post by Bjarne Saltbaek
I have attached a diff against
http://svn.rpmforge.net/svn/trunk/rpms/libcaca/libcaca.spec with the updated
package.

I committed you SPEC, thanks!

What left me wondering are your strip statements. Normally, the binaries
and the libraries will get stripped automatically and the symbols will
be packed into the debug packages unless their generation is explicitly
disabled.

Also, la-files are to be excluded as they cause more harm than good.

[arnebjarne72]

Hi Yury

Post by Yury V. Zaytsev
What left me wondering are your strip statements. Normally, the binaries
and the libraries will get stripped automatically and the symbols will
be packed into the debug packages unless their generation is explicitly
disabled.

OK, my standard CentOS 5.5 might not have the correct rpmbuild macros
installed???

I did a normal "rpmbuild -ba".
And afterwards i did a "rpmlint" which told me that the libcaca Makefile had
not ran an "install -s" (i guess) to strip the production binaries.
Thats why I have added them manually.

Is there another RPMbuild-way to do that? Or should one just tell the
libcaca programmer to do a proper Makefile?

Post by Yury V. Zaytsev
Also, la-files are to be excluded as they cause more harm than good.

They are allowed in a devel-package, right? or should a devel-static package
be made for the *.la files?

Regards,
Bjarne

[Yury V. Zaytsev]

Hi!

I've actually tried to rebuild the SPEC and it turned out that you
forgot ruby-devel build-dep which is needed if you need to compile Ruby
bindings (ruby is not enough).

Post by arnebjarne72
OK, my standard CentOS 5.5 might not have the correct rpmbuild macros
installed???

I am not sure about your setup, but my mock build actually comes out
with correctly stripped binaries and rpmlint produces no warnings. So
yes, I suppose you have a problem with your system wich I can't diagnose
because there are too many unknowns.

Either way, as I said, this has to be done by build scripts rather than
software's Makefile, just as Debian has its dh_strip debhelper module
that is conceived for the very same purpose.

Post by arnebjarne72

Post by Yury V. Zaytsev
Also, la-files are to be excluded as they cause more harm than good.

They are allowed in a devel-package, right? or should a devel-static package
be made for the *.la files?

Check out what our prominent Autotools expert has to say on this issue:

http://blog.flameeyes.eu/2008/04/14/what-about-those-la-files

To make it short, on modern Linux systems .la files are only needed in
the case if you need to do static linking AND the package does not
provide proper pkgconfig files (which is not the case for libcaca).

Best,

[Bjarne Saltbaek]

Hi Yury.

Post by Yury V. Zaytsev
I've actually tried to rebuild the SPEC and it turned out that you
forgot ruby-devel build-dep which is needed if you need to compile Ruby
bindings (ruby is not enough).

Ah, bummer. Do you need a new SPEC or have you changed the SPEC yourself?

Regards,
Bjarne

[Yury V. Zaytsev]

Hi!

Post by Bjarne Saltbaek
Ah, bummer. Do you need a new SPEC or have you changed the SPEC yourself?

It's already in the SVN :-)

[Yury V. Zaytsev]

Hi!

Post by Bjarne Saltbaek
Ah, bummer. Do you need a new SPEC or have you changed the SPEC yourself?

It's already in the SVN :-)

[Yury V. Zaytsev]

Hi!

Post by Bjarne Saltbaek
Ah, bummer. Do you need a new SPEC or have you changed the SPEC yourself?

It's already in the SVN :-)

[Yury V. Zaytsev]

Hi!

Post by Bjarne Saltbaek
Ah, bummer. Do you need a new SPEC or have you changed the SPEC yourself?

It's already in the SVN :-)

[Yury V. Zaytsev]

Hi!

Post by Bjarne Saltbaek
Ah, bummer. Do you need a new SPEC or have you changed the SPEC yourself?

It's already in the SVN :-)

[Bjarne Saltbaek]

Hi Yury.

Post by Yury V. Zaytsev
I've actually tried to rebuild the SPEC and it turned out that you
forgot ruby-devel build-dep which is needed if you need to compile Ruby
bindings (ruby is not enough).

Ah, bummer. Do you need a new SPEC or have you changed the SPEC yourself?

Regards,
Bjarne

[Bjarne Saltbaek]

Hi Yury.

Post by Yury V. Zaytsev
I've actually tried to rebuild the SPEC and it turned out that you
forgot ruby-devel build-dep which is needed if you need to compile Ruby
bindings (ruby is not enough).

Ah, bummer. Do you need a new SPEC or have you changed the SPEC yourself?

Regards,
Bjarne

[Bjarne Saltbaek]

Hi Yury.

Post by Yury V. Zaytsev
I've actually tried to rebuild the SPEC and it turned out that you
forgot ruby-devel build-dep which is needed if you need to compile Ruby
bindings (ruby is not enough).

Ah, bummer. Do you need a new SPEC or have you changed the SPEC yourself?

Regards,
Bjarne

[Bjarne Saltbaek]

Hi Yury.

Post by Yury V. Zaytsev
I've actually tried to rebuild the SPEC and it turned out that you
forgot ruby-devel build-dep which is needed if you need to compile Ruby
bindings (ruby is not enough).

Ah, bummer. Do you need a new SPEC or have you changed the SPEC yourself?

Regards,
Bjarne

[Yury V. Zaytsev]

Hi!

I've actually tried to rebuild the SPEC and it turned out that you
forgot ruby-devel build-dep which is needed if you need to compile Ruby
bindings (ruby is not enough).

Post by arnebjarne72
OK, my standard CentOS 5.5 might not have the correct rpmbuild macros
installed???

I am not sure about your setup, but my mock build actually comes out
with correctly stripped binaries and rpmlint produces no warnings. So
yes, I suppose you have a problem with your system wich I can't diagnose
because there are too many unknowns.

Either way, as I said, this has to be done by build scripts rather than
software's Makefile, just as Debian has its dh_strip debhelper module
that is conceived for the very same purpose.

Post by arnebjarne72

Post by Yury V. Zaytsev
Also, la-files are to be excluded as they cause more harm than good.

They are allowed in a devel-package, right? or should a devel-static package
be made for the *.la files?

Check out what our prominent Autotools expert has to say on this issue:

http://blog.flameeyes.eu/2008/04/14/what-about-those-la-files

To make it short, on modern Linux systems .la files are only needed in
the case if you need to do static linking AND the package does not
provide proper pkgconfig files (which is not the case for libcaca).

Best,

[Yury V. Zaytsev]

Hi!

I've actually tried to rebuild the SPEC and it turned out that you
forgot ruby-devel build-dep which is needed if you need to compile Ruby
bindings (ruby is not enough).

Post by arnebjarne72
OK, my standard CentOS 5.5 might not have the correct rpmbuild macros
installed???

I am not sure about your setup, but my mock build actually comes out
with correctly stripped binaries and rpmlint produces no warnings. So
yes, I suppose you have a problem with your system wich I can't diagnose
because there are too many unknowns.

Either way, as I said, this has to be done by build scripts rather than
software's Makefile, just as Debian has its dh_strip debhelper module
that is conceived for the very same purpose.

Post by arnebjarne72

Post by Yury V. Zaytsev
Also, la-files are to be excluded as they cause more harm than good.

They are allowed in a devel-package, right? or should a devel-static package
be made for the *.la files?

Check out what our prominent Autotools expert has to say on this issue:

http://blog.flameeyes.eu/2008/04/14/what-about-those-la-files

To make it short, on modern Linux systems .la files are only needed in
the case if you need to do static linking AND the package does not
provide proper pkgconfig files (which is not the case for libcaca).

Best,

[Yury V. Zaytsev]

Hi!

I've actually tried to rebuild the SPEC and it turned out that you
forgot ruby-devel build-dep which is needed if you need to compile Ruby
bindings (ruby is not enough).

Post by arnebjarne72
OK, my standard CentOS 5.5 might not have the correct rpmbuild macros
installed???

I am not sure about your setup, but my mock build actually comes out
with correctly stripped binaries and rpmlint produces no warnings. So
yes, I suppose you have a problem with your system wich I can't diagnose
because there are too many unknowns.

Either way, as I said, this has to be done by build scripts rather than
software's Makefile, just as Debian has its dh_strip debhelper module
that is conceived for the very same purpose.

Post by arnebjarne72

Post by Yury V. Zaytsev
Also, la-files are to be excluded as they cause more harm than good.

They are allowed in a devel-package, right? or should a devel-static package
be made for the *.la files?

Check out what our prominent Autotools expert has to say on this issue:

http://blog.flameeyes.eu/2008/04/14/what-about-those-la-files

To make it short, on modern Linux systems .la files are only needed in
the case if you need to do static linking AND the package does not
provide proper pkgconfig files (which is not the case for libcaca).

Best,

[Yury V. Zaytsev]

Hi!

I've actually tried to rebuild the SPEC and it turned out that you
forgot ruby-devel build-dep which is needed if you need to compile Ruby
bindings (ruby is not enough).

Post by arnebjarne72
OK, my standard CentOS 5.5 might not have the correct rpmbuild macros
installed???

I am not sure about your setup, but my mock build actually comes out
with correctly stripped binaries and rpmlint produces no warnings. So
yes, I suppose you have a problem with your system wich I can't diagnose
because there are too many unknowns.

Either way, as I said, this has to be done by build scripts rather than
software's Makefile, just as Debian has its dh_strip debhelper module
that is conceived for the very same purpose.

Post by arnebjarne72

Post by Yury V. Zaytsev
Also, la-files are to be excluded as they cause more harm than good.

They are allowed in a devel-package, right? or should a devel-static package
be made for the *.la files?

Check out what our prominent Autotools expert has to say on this issue:

http://blog.flameeyes.eu/2008/04/14/what-about-those-la-files

To make it short, on modern Linux systems .la files are only needed in
the case if you need to do static linking AND the package does not
provide proper pkgconfig files (which is not the case for libcaca).

Best,

[Aleksey Nogin]

Post by Yury V. Zaytsev
Hi!

Post by Bjarne Saltbaek
I have attached a diff against
http://svn.rpmforge.net/svn/trunk/rpms/libcaca/libcaca.spec with the updated
package.

I committed you SPEC, thanks!
What left me wondering are your strip statements. Normally, the binaries
and the libraries will get stripped automatically and the symbols will
be packed into the debug packages unless their generation is explicitly
disabled.
Also, la-files are to be excluded as they cause more harm than good.

Yury,

Could you please rebuild xine against the new libcaca, otherwise I am
getting a conflict because the xine I have installed wants the old one.

TIA!

Aleksey

[Yury V. Zaytsev]

Hi!

Post by Aleksey Nogin
Could you please rebuild xine against the new libcaca, otherwise I am
getting a conflict because the xine I have installed wants the old one.

Only Dag has the rebuild powers, but he has rebuilt the package already
yesterday and by now it should hit the mirrors. If he rebuilds my new
package you gonna get xine-0.99.6 as a compensation for inconveniences.

[Yury V. Zaytsev]

Hi!

Post by Aleksey Nogin
Could you please rebuild xine against the new libcaca, otherwise I am
getting a conflict because the xine I have installed wants the old one.

Only Dag has the rebuild powers, but he has rebuilt the package already
yesterday and by now it should hit the mirrors. If he rebuilds my new
package you gonna get xine-0.99.6 as a compensation for inconveniences.

[Yury V. Zaytsev]

Hi!

Post by Aleksey Nogin
Could you please rebuild xine against the new libcaca, otherwise I am
getting a conflict because the xine I have installed wants the old one.

Only Dag has the rebuild powers, but he has rebuilt the package already
yesterday and by now it should hit the mirrors. If he rebuilds my new
package you gonna get xine-0.99.6 as a compensation for inconveniences.

[Yury V. Zaytsev]

Hi!

Post by Aleksey Nogin
Could you please rebuild xine against the new libcaca, otherwise I am
getting a conflict because the xine I have installed wants the old one.

Only Dag has the rebuild powers, but he has rebuilt the package already
yesterday and by now it should hit the mirrors. If he rebuilds my new
package you gonna get xine-0.99.6 as a compensation for inconveniences.

[Yury V. Zaytsev]

Hi!

Post by Aleksey Nogin
Could you please rebuild xine against the new libcaca, otherwise I am
getting a conflict because the xine I have installed wants the old one.

Only Dag has the rebuild powers, but he has rebuilt the package already
yesterday and by now it should hit the mirrors. If he rebuilds my new
package you gonna get xine-0.99.6 as a compensation for inconveniences.

[arnebjarne72]

Hi Yury

Post by Yury V. Zaytsev
What left me wondering are your strip statements. Normally, the binaries
and the libraries will get stripped automatically and the symbols will
be packed into the debug packages unless their generation is explicitly
disabled.

OK, my standard CentOS 5.5 might not have the correct rpmbuild macros
installed???

I did a normal "rpmbuild -ba".
And afterwards i did a "rpmlint" which told me that the libcaca Makefile had
not ran an "install -s" (i guess) to strip the production binaries.
Thats why I have added them manually.

Is there another RPMbuild-way to do that? Or should one just tell the
libcaca programmer to do a proper Makefile?

Post by Yury V. Zaytsev
Also, la-files are to be excluded as they cause more harm than good.

They are allowed in a devel-package, right? or should a devel-static package
be made for the *.la files?

Regards,
Bjarne

[Aleksey Nogin]

Post by Yury V. Zaytsev
Hi!

Post by Bjarne Saltbaek
I have attached a diff against
http://svn.rpmforge.net/svn/trunk/rpms/libcaca/libcaca.spec with the updated
package.

I committed you SPEC, thanks!
What left me wondering are your strip statements. Normally, the binaries
and the libraries will get stripped automatically and the symbols will
be packed into the debug packages unless their generation is explicitly
disabled.
Also, la-files are to be excluded as they cause more harm than good.

Yury,

Could you please rebuild xine against the new libcaca, otherwise I am
getting a conflict because the xine I have installed wants the old one.

TIA!

Aleksey

[arnebjarne72]

Hi Yury

Post by Yury V. Zaytsev
What left me wondering are your strip statements. Normally, the binaries
and the libraries will get stripped automatically and the symbols will
be packed into the debug packages unless their generation is explicitly
disabled.

OK, my standard CentOS 5.5 might not have the correct rpmbuild macros
installed???

I did a normal "rpmbuild -ba".
And afterwards i did a "rpmlint" which told me that the libcaca Makefile had
not ran an "install -s" (i guess) to strip the production binaries.
Thats why I have added them manually.

Is there another RPMbuild-way to do that? Or should one just tell the
libcaca programmer to do a proper Makefile?

Post by Yury V. Zaytsev
Also, la-files are to be excluded as they cause more harm than good.

They are allowed in a devel-package, right? or should a devel-static package
be made for the *.la files?

Regards,
Bjarne

[Aleksey Nogin]

Post by Yury V. Zaytsev
Hi!

Post by Bjarne Saltbaek
I have attached a diff against
http://svn.rpmforge.net/svn/trunk/rpms/libcaca/libcaca.spec with the updated
package.

I committed you SPEC, thanks!
What left me wondering are your strip statements. Normally, the binaries
and the libraries will get stripped automatically and the symbols will
be packed into the debug packages unless their generation is explicitly
disabled.
Also, la-files are to be excluded as they cause more harm than good.

Yury,

Could you please rebuild xine against the new libcaca, otherwise I am
getting a conflict because the xine I have installed wants the old one.

TIA!

Aleksey

[arnebjarne72]

Hi Yury

Post by Yury V. Zaytsev
What left me wondering are your strip statements. Normally, the binaries
and the libraries will get stripped automatically and the symbols will
be packed into the debug packages unless their generation is explicitly
disabled.

OK, my standard CentOS 5.5 might not have the correct rpmbuild macros
installed???

I did a normal "rpmbuild -ba".
And afterwards i did a "rpmlint" which told me that the libcaca Makefile had
not ran an "install -s" (i guess) to strip the production binaries.
Thats why I have added them manually.

Is there another RPMbuild-way to do that? Or should one just tell the
libcaca programmer to do a proper Makefile?

Post by Yury V. Zaytsev
Also, la-files are to be excluded as they cause more harm than good.

They are allowed in a devel-package, right? or should a devel-static package
be made for the *.la files?

Regards,
Bjarne

[Aleksey Nogin]

Post by Yury V. Zaytsev
Hi!

Post by Bjarne Saltbaek
I have attached a diff against
http://svn.rpmforge.net/svn/trunk/rpms/libcaca/libcaca.spec with the updated
package.

I committed you SPEC, thanks!
What left me wondering are your strip statements. Normally, the binaries
and the libraries will get stripped automatically and the symbols will
be packed into the debug packages unless their generation is explicitly
disabled.
Also, la-files are to be excluded as they cause more harm than good.

Yury,

Could you please rebuild xine against the new libcaca, otherwise I am
getting a conflict because the xine I have installed wants the old one.

TIA!

Aleksey

[arnebjarne72]

Hi Yury

Post by Yury V. Zaytsev
What left me wondering are your strip statements. Normally, the binaries
and the libraries will get stripped automatically and the symbols will
be packed into the debug packages unless their generation is explicitly
disabled.

OK, my standard CentOS 5.5 might not have the correct rpmbuild macros
installed???

I did a normal "rpmbuild -ba".
And afterwards i did a "rpmlint" which told me that the libcaca Makefile had
not ran an "install -s" (i guess) to strip the production binaries.
Thats why I have added them manually.

Is there another RPMbuild-way to do that? Or should one just tell the
libcaca programmer to do a proper Makefile?

Post by Yury V. Zaytsev
Also, la-files are to be excluded as they cause more harm than good.

They are allowed in a devel-package, right? or should a devel-static package
be made for the *.la files?

Regards,
Bjarne

[Aleksey Nogin]

Post by Yury V. Zaytsev
Hi!

Post by Bjarne Saltbaek
I have attached a diff against
http://svn.rpmforge.net/svn/trunk/rpms/libcaca/libcaca.spec with the updated
package.

I committed you SPEC, thanks!
What left me wondering are your strip statements. Normally, the binaries
and the libraries will get stripped automatically and the symbols will
be packed into the debug packages unless their generation is explicitly
disabled.
Also, la-files are to be excluded as they cause more harm than good.

Yury,

Could you please rebuild xine against the new libcaca, otherwise I am
getting a conflict because the xine I have installed wants the old one.

TIA!

Aleksey

[Bjarne Saltbaek]

To RPMforge.

libcaca at RPMforge needs an update in order to compile VLC > 1.0.

I have attached a diff against
http://svn.rpmforge.net/svn/trunk/rpms/libcaca/libcaca.spec with the updated
package.


Regards,
Bjarne

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: libcaca.spec.diff
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 4629 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20100612/00c731ad/attachment-0001.obj

[Yury V. Zaytsev]

Hi!

Post by Bjarne Saltbaek
I have attached a diff against
http://svn.rpmforge.net/svn/trunk/rpms/libcaca/libcaca.spec with the updated
package.

I committed you SPEC, thanks!

What left me wondering are your strip statements. Normally, the binaries
and the libraries will get stripped automatically and the symbols will
be packed into the debug packages unless their generation is explicitly
disabled.

Also, la-files are to be excluded as they cause more harm than good.

[Bjarne Saltbaek]

To RPMforge.

libcaca at RPMforge needs an update in order to compile VLC > 1.0.

I have attached a diff against
http://svn.rpmforge.net/svn/trunk/rpms/libcaca/libcaca.spec with the updated
package.


Regards,
Bjarne

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: libcaca.spec.diff
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 4629 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20100612/00c731ad/attachment-0002.obj

[Yury V. Zaytsev]

Hi!

Post by Bjarne Saltbaek
I have attached a diff against
http://svn.rpmforge.net/svn/trunk/rpms/libcaca/libcaca.spec with the updated
package.

I committed you SPEC, thanks!

What left me wondering are your strip statements. Normally, the binaries
and the libraries will get stripped automatically and the symbols will
be packed into the debug packages unless their generation is explicitly
disabled.

Also, la-files are to be excluded as they cause more harm than good.

[Bjarne Saltbaek]

To RPMforge.

libcaca at RPMforge needs an update in order to compile VLC > 1.0.

I have attached a diff against
http://svn.rpmforge.net/svn/trunk/rpms/libcaca/libcaca.spec with the updated
package.


Regards,
Bjarne

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: libcaca.spec.diff
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 4629 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20100612/00c731ad/attachment-0003.obj

[Yury V. Zaytsev]

Hi!

Post by Bjarne Saltbaek
I have attached a diff against
http://svn.rpmforge.net/svn/trunk/rpms/libcaca/libcaca.spec with the updated
package.

I committed you SPEC, thanks!

What left me wondering are your strip statements. Normally, the binaries
and the libraries will get stripped automatically and the symbols will
be packed into the debug packages unless their generation is explicitly
disabled.

Also, la-files are to be excluded as they cause more harm than good.

[Bjarne Saltbaek]

To RPMforge.

libcaca at RPMforge needs an update in order to compile VLC > 1.0.

I have attached a diff against
http://svn.rpmforge.net/svn/trunk/rpms/libcaca/libcaca.spec with the updated
package.


Regards,
Bjarne

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: libcaca.spec.diff
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 4629 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20100612/00c731ad/attachment-0004.obj>

[Yury V. Zaytsev]

Hi!

Post by Bjarne Saltbaek
I have attached a diff against
http://svn.rpmforge.net/svn/trunk/rpms/libcaca/libcaca.spec with the updated
package.

I committed you SPEC, thanks!

What left me wondering are your strip statements. Normally, the binaries
and the libraries will get stripped automatically and the symbols will
be packed into the debug packages unless their generation is explicitly
disabled.

Also, la-files are to be excluded as they cause more harm than good.