[PACKAGED] Dukto - Is it OK ?

[sling-shot]

SRPM : http://dl.dropbox.com/u/37931428/Dukto/dukto-5-1slingshot2012.src.rpm
SPEC : http://dl.dropbox.com/u/37931428/Dukto/pclos-dukto.spec
RPM : http://dl.dropbox.com/u/37931428/Dukto/dukto-5-1slingshot2012.i586.rpm
LOG : http://dl.dropbox.com/u/37931428/Dukto/pclos-dukto.spec.log

NOTE : Posts below are discussions leading to this final package.
------------------------------------------
Notes:
1. There were some WARNINGs about unused libraries in the log.
2. I have slight misgivings about the default .desktop file provided with the package. It does not define proper category of menu entries?

------------------------------------------

Dukto R5
If you don’t know Dukto, I can tell you that it’s an easy file transfer tool designed for LAN use. I use it in my everyday work to transfer files from one PC (or other device) to another, without worrying about users, permissions, operating systems, protocols, clients, servers and so on… Just start Dukto on the two PCs and transfer files and folders by dragging onto it’s window. That’s all.

Dukto main features are:

    Simple user interface
    No server or internet connection needed
    Zero configuration
    Clients auto-discovery
    High speed file transfer
    Multi-OS native support
    Portable version available
    Multi files and folders transfer
    Transfers log
    Send and receive text snippets (eg. useful for sending URLs)
    Open received files directly from the application
    Windows 7 taskbar integration with progress and transfer indicator
    Show your IP addresses on the IP connection page
    Full Unicode support
    Metro style UI
    Free and open source

Dukto is a free open source project, licensed under GPL. Official releases are made by me for the folliwing platforms:

    Windows (XP or later)
    OS X (10.6.x or later)
    Linux (packaged for another distro and Fedora)
    Symbian (for Nokia touch phones)

Also there are porting made by other developers, like the following:

    RIM Playbook on Blackberry AppWorld, ported by Sacha Refshauge
    Android on Google Play, ported by Eyecreate Studios
    OpenPandora, ported by EyeCreate Studios
    Maemo, made by the Maemo community

You can find the source code on the project page http://dukto.googlecode.com/ at google code.

[TerryN]

Why have you used AutoReqProv: no ?

Doing so means that apt/synaptic cannot automatically check/install any dependencies that it needs.  Those tags should only be used in rare cases when you are building a package which has pre-built library binaries in it.

Terry.

[sling-shot]

Why have you used AutoReqProv: no ?

Doing so means that apt/synaptic will not automatically install any dependencies that it needs.  Those tags should only be used if you are building a package which has pre-built library binaries in it.

Terry.

OK. Then it requires extensive revision. I need to find out exactly what are its requirements.
Will be back later.

[ghostbunny]

Mh the BuildRequires are missing. you use qmake so you have to add at least BuildRequires: %{_lib}qt4-devel

why are you using AutoReqProv:   no ?

This will avoid dependency checking after build which will result in a non working program if qt4 isn't installed.

please use %make to speed up the compilation (just affects system with more than one processor but should be set always if possible)

why did you start the package with release 2?

use also %qmake_qt4 together with %make it avoids overlinking (sometimes) (the warning message).

[ghostbunny]

any progress?

[sling-shot]

The house which I am staying in is getting repainted. No time to spare for another few more days

[ghostbunny]

no problem take the time you need

[sling-shot]

I have updated the .spec file to have BuildRequires. It builds and tests OK on my system.

The links in the first post contain the updated files.

However there is this entry in the log file which looks suspicious:

Code: [Select]

Finding  Requires: /usr/lib/rpm/mandriva/filter.sh ' ' ' ' '/home/testinstall/src/rpm/BUILDROOT/dukto-5-4slingshot2012.i386' /usr/lib/rpm/mandriva/find-requires /home/testinstall/src/rpm/BUILDROOT/dukto-5-4slingshot2012.i386 i586
Requires(rpmlib): rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
Requires: libc.so.6 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3) libgcc_s.so.1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0) libpthread.so.0 libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.0) libQtCore.so.4 libQtDeclarative.so.4 libQtGui.so.4 libQtNetwork.so.4 libstdc++.so.6 libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4) rtld(GNU_HASH)

Does it mean that I have to add:

Code: [Select]

Requires:   libqtcore4
Requires:   libqtdeclarative4
Requires:   libqtnetwork4
Requires:   libqtgui4
Requires:   glibc >= 2.1.3
Requires:   gcc >= 3.0
Requires:   gnu_hash

-------------

UPDATE : GNU_HASH seems to be present in GLIBC. So that entry might be redundant.

-------------

I am not sure which of the Requires are already present in the built binary.
Can only be ascertained after installation in a NON-QT system, which I presently do not have.

Requesting further assistance....

[TerryN]

Does it mean that I have to add:

Code: [Select]

Requires:   libqtcore4
Requires:   libqtdeclarative4
Requires:   libqtnetwork4
Requires:   libqtgui4
Requires:   glibc >= 2.1.3
Requires:   gcc >= 3.0
Requires:   gnu_hash


No, it is telling you it has added them automatically as I said here.  Run rpm -qpR on the resulting RPM and you will see them.

Terry

[sling-shot]

OK. So I think this package is DONE then unless I am missing something else.

[ghostbunny]

hi,

only thing i found your release number in the changelog does not fit the one defined in the spec

update the link to the srpm please it is the old one which does not contain the changes we collected here.

From me it get's a good to go for processing.

after updating the link sent Neal a pm for looking into this thread. and i think he will process it for public.

regards
ghostbunny

[sling-shot]

The SRC.RPM and .RPM links have been updated in the first post now.

I will edit the Changelog and update a fresh one.

The Changelog does not matter because it will be Neal who will write a new one anyway, right?

[ghostbunny]

The Changelog does not matter because it will be Neal who will write a new one anyway, right?

that's not right at all.

Neal adds a changelog entry which just contains the message

Code: [Select]

- process.

or that he added further build requirements if necessary.

Neal can't know if you added a patch or something else to the srpm/spec, so it is necessary that you write your own changelog entry which contains the changes you have done.

when you update a package it is mostly enough to add a changlog entry like the following

Code: [Select]

* <date> <packager name> <packager email> <version>-<release><distsuffix>
- <version>

which just means you updated the package to the specified version. if you had to change something to get the update working you should leave a small as possible note(s) about what you have changed/done.

[sling-shot]

Right. I will change the Changelog accordingly

Things take a long time to enter my thickish skull.

[sling-shot]

Cleaned up the Changelog. I think this is ready then.
Thanks.