https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1123511 Christopher Meng <i(a)cicku.me&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zboszor(a)pr.hu --- Comment #1 from Christopher Meng <i(a)cicku.me&gt; --- *** Bug 1012392 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1123511 --- Comment #3 from Japheth Cleaver <cleaver-redhat(a)terabithia.org&gt; --- Thanks for the comments. Some responses: - I'd like to keep the EL builds a possibility, definitely. - config line updated to use that macro pattern, thanks - turns out the --enable-debug did more than simply not strip the binaries. I've removed that and bypassed stripping another way. I believe the options should be correct now. - doc files updated The pkgconfig Version is coming from the ABI version in https://github.com/nanomsg/nanomsg/blob/master/src/nn.h, ultimately. As for the SONAME itself, that's... interesting. I'm not sure on the history there. I'll look into it further. I've updated the versions at: http://terabithia.org/rpms/misc/f20/nanomsg-0.4-0.3.beta.fc20.src.rpm http://terabithia.org/rpms/misc/f20/nanomsg.spec Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7200652 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1123511 --- Comment #5 from Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael(a)gmx.net&gt; --- Yes, "libtool versioning" is this, http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/manual/html_node/Updating-version-inf... but while it is certainly possible to map the current:revision:age values into the release versioning scheme (e.g. 2:0:2 -> nanomsg-2.0.2), this has not been done here because the release is nanomsg-0.4-beta. So, RPM package %version = 0.4 does not match the version in the pkgconfig .pc file. This also affects RPM BuildRequires on pkgconfig files ( https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:PkgConfigBuildRequires ), pkgconfig based queries (see "pkg-config --help|grep VERS") and .pc file inter-dependencies. I would have expected the nanonmsg release version to be the same as the .pc file version. Either 2.x.y or 0.x. With a leading 0 being better because it would match the SONAME version. [...] Good catch. That's one of the reasons why verbose build output can be helpful. | nanomsg-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib False positive. | [ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size | (~1MB) or number of files. | Note: Documentation size is 296960 bytes in 3 files. The currently small size of the -doc package makes it questionable. Just note that you are free to include those files in the -devel package. It could still be split off in the future in case the size would increase a lot. | [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. | Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in nanomsg- | utils , nanomsg-doc 1) It's good that a normal -doc package does not depend on the base library package. 2) For nanomsg-utils, it's debatable. Some packagers refuse to add a base package Requires to such subpackages, because the automatic SONAME dep is present already and sufficient for up-to-date installations. The only benefit of the base package Requires would be to make the dep more strict, i.e. installation of nanomsg-utils linked with API additions would strictly require the corresponding nanomsg base package. An older lib release with the same SONAME would not suffice due to missing the new symbols. [...] Have you thought about attempting at doing a few reviews? * http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/ * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1123511 Fabian Affolter <mail(a)fabian-affolter.ch&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |cleaver-redhat(a)terabithia.o | |rg, mail(a)fabian-affolter.ch Flags| |needinfo?(cleaver-redhat@te | |rabithia.org) --- Comment #7 from Fabian Affolter <mail(a)fabian-affolter.ch&gt; --- Any progress? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1123511 Pavel Zhukov <pzhukov(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(cleaver-redhat@te | |rabithia.org) --- Comment #11 from Pavel Zhukov <pzhukov(a)redhat.com&gt; --- (In reply to Fabian Affolter from comment #10) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1123511 Japheth Cleaver <cleaver-redhat(a)terabithia.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(cleaver-redhat@te | |rabithia.org) | --- Comment #13 from Japheth Cleaver <cleaver-redhat(a)terabithia.org&gt; --- (In reply to Upstream Release Monitoring from comment #12) The "Currently fails checks: https://github.com/nanomsg/nanomsg/issues/281" line should be removed from the .spec file (since it now passes fine, so long as LD_LIBRARY_PATH is specified), and the dist tag indicates this was a rebuild of an f20 SRPM, however the functionality and file list should be correct. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1123511 Neal Gompa <ngompa13(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ngompa13(a)gmail.com --- Comment #15 from Neal Gompa <ngompa13(a)gmail.com&gt; --- @Japheth: Are you still trying to get this in? It'd be great if it was in Fedora. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1123511 Tarjei Knapstad <tarjei.knapstad(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tarjei.knapstad(a)gmail.com --- Comment #17 from Tarjei Knapstad <tarjei.knapstad(a)gmail.com&gt; --- I would like to reopen this request. A stable 1.0.0 release of this package was released, which also involves changes to the packaging, mainly because upstream switched from autoconf to cmake. This leads to packaging simplifications and less of a hackish spec, so I would say it's for the better. I've updated the original .spec file uploaded here and tried to correct it according to the comments made on the original request. I've successfully built the package in Copr and using the fedora-packager tools. The Epel7 build fails, but I don't quite understand why, so if anyone could look into that I would appreciate it. A Copr repo is available here: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/tknapstad/nanomsg/ The .spec file is available here: https://gist.github.com/tknapstad/6c8baca1678307acfbea59ad1b59da13 A summary of my changes from the .spec file: * Sat Apr 1 2017 Tarjei Knapstad <tarjei.knapstad(a)gmail.com&gt; - 1.0.0-1 - Updated to 1.0.0 final release - nanomsg moved to CMake, so this spec did too - Changed source URL - Moved contents of -doc package into -devel - Removed conditional check, all tests should pass - The nanocat symlink stuff is gone, nanocat is now a single binary with options -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1123511 --- Comment #19 from Tarjei Knapstad <tarjei.knapstad(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Thank you Japheth, no worries. I've opened a new Review Request at bug 1438927. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component