5:44 p.m.
Hey,
I could use some help with a fairly straightforward packaging task.
The yorba team has made 0.5.90 snapshots available here:
http://yorba.org/download/shotwell/0.5/unstable/
These depend on a little library called gexiv2, which can be found here:
http://yorba.org/download/gexiv2/0.0/unstable/
It would be great if somebody could package gexiv2 and get it into
rawhide, so that we can update shotwell, I currently lack the spare
cycles to do this.
Thanks,
Matthias
2:07 a.m.
On 1 June 2010 23:44, Matthias Clasen <mclasen(a)redhat.com> wrote:
It would be great if somebody could package gexiv2 and get it into
rawhide, so that we can update shotwell, I currently lack the spare
cycles to do this.
How is gexiv2 different to exiv2? We already package the latter.
Richard.
2:18 a.m.
On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 08:07 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 1 June 2010 23:44, Matthias Clasen <mclasen(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
> It would be great if somebody could package gexiv2 and get it into
> rawhide, so that we can update shotwell, I currently lack the spare
> cycles to do this.
How is gexiv2 different to exiv2? We already package the latter.
Richard.
hey,
From the project homepage[1]
"gexiv2 is a GObject-based wrapper around the Exiv2 library. It makes
the basic features of Exiv2 available to GNOME applications."
Matthias: I'm going to try and package it today. Will keep the list
posted.
regards,
Ankur
6:04 a.m.
On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 18:44 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
Hey,
I could use some help with a fairly straightforward packaging task.
The yorba team has made 0.5.90 snapshots available here:
http://yorba.org/download/shotwell/0.5/unstable/
These depend on a little library called gexiv2, which can be found here:
http://yorba.org/download/gexiv2/0.0/unstable/
It would be great if somebody could package gexiv2 and get it into
rawhide, so that we can update shotwell, I currently lack the spare
cycles to do this.
Thanks,
Matthias
hi,
An update:
The configure script provided in the package is a non standard one which
only supports the --prefix option. (try ./configure -h). Therefore, a
packager, in this case me, cannot use the %configure macro for the build
process. This also implies that the CFLAGS etc. will need to be exported
manually, separately for each architecture.
That is way too much messing around in one spec file for such a simple
package. I've filed a ticket[1] upstream requesting them to autotoolize
the package. The package will have to wait until the ticket is
resolved.
Thanks & regards,
Ankur
[1] http://trac.yorba.org/ticket/2001
7:20 a.m.
On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 16:34 +0530, Ankur Sinha wrote:
An update:
The configure script provided in the package is a non standard one which
only supports the --prefix option. (try ./configure -h). Therefore, a
packager, in this case me, cannot use the %configure macro for the build
process. This also implies that the CFLAGS etc. will need to be exported
manually, separately for each architecture.
That is way too much messing around in one spec file for such a simple
package. I've filed a ticket[1] upstream requesting them to autotoolize
the package. The package will have to wait until the ticket is
resolved.
Guess that means I will have to package it myself after all :-(
Too bad. Thanks for your efforts anyway.
7:35 a.m.
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 5:50 PM, Matthias Clasen <mclasen(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Guess that means I will have to package it myself after all :-(
Too bad. Thanks for your efforts anyway.
What about LibRaw ? Isn't that also
required for shotwell ?
Kushal
--
http://fedoraproject.org
http://kushaldas.in
7:46 a.m.
On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 08:20 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
Guess that means I will have to package it myself after all :-(
Too bad. Thanks for your efforts anyway.
hey,
I can go ahead and package it if you need it that badly. Should I?
I thought it would be best to wait for upstream to clean it up though.
Hacking around the problem might not pass a review?
regards,
Ankur
7:52 a.m.
On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 18:16 +0530, Ankur Sinha wrote:
I can go ahead and package it if you need it that badly. Should I?
It would certainly help me.
I thought it would be best to wait for upstream to clean it up
though.
If you think the current state of affairs is unacceptable, you could
submit a patch to make things better. Waiting for somebody else is
rarely a winning position in FOSS...
Hacking around the problem might not pass a review?
Shotwell had a similar setup when it was first packaged. I don't think
'upstream doesn't do everything perfectly to our liking' is a valid
reason to reject a package. Of course, you might end up with a more
picky reviewer than me...
7:59 a.m.
On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 08:52 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 18:16 +0530, Ankur Sinha wrote:
> I can go ahead and package it if you need it that badly. Should I?
It would certainly help me.
> I thought it would be best to wait for upstream to clean it up though.
If you think the current state of affairs is unacceptable, you could
submit a patch to make things better. Waiting for somebody else is
rarely a winning position in FOSS...
> Hacking around the problem might not pass a review?
Shotwell had a similar setup when it was first packaged. I don't think
'upstream doesn't do everything perfectly to our liking' is a valid
reason to reject a package. Of course, you might end up with a more
picky reviewer than me...
hey,
Okay, I'll work on it tonight then.
regards,
Ankur
12:16 p.m.
On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 08:52 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 18:16 +0530, Ankur Sinha wrote:
> I can go ahead and package it if you need it that badly. Should I?
It would certainly help me.
> I thought it would be best to wait for upstream to clean it up though.
If you think the current state of affairs is unacceptable, you could
submit a patch to make things better. Waiting for somebody else is
rarely a winning position in FOSS...
> Hacking around the problem might not pass a review?
Shotwell had a similar setup when it was first packaged. I don't think
'upstream doesn't do everything perfectly to our liking' is a valid
reason to reject a package. Of course, you might end up with a more
picky reviewer than me...
hi,
review request:
regards,
Ankur
1:16 a.m.
New subject: volunteer needed [libgexiv2 built for rawhide]
On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 08:52 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 18:16 +0530, Ankur Sinha wrote:
> I can go ahead and package it if you need it that badly. Should I?
It would certainly help me.
> I thought it would be best to wait for upstream to clean it up though.
If you think the current state of affairs is unacceptable, you could
submit a patch to make things better. Waiting for somebody else is
rarely a winning position in FOSS...
> Hacking around the problem might not pass a review?
Shotwell had a similar setup when it was first packaged. I don't think
'upstream doesn't do everything perfectly to our liking' is a valid
reason to reject a package. Of course, you might end up with a more
picky reviewer than me...
hello,
The link speaks for itself :)
It isn't building on F-12 yet, exiv2 needs to be updated[1]. I've built
it for F-14 and F-13 in the meantime
regards,
Ankur
[1]
5056
days inactive
5076
days old
desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org
10 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Ankur Sinha -
Kushal Das -
Matthias Clasen -
Richard Hughes