gweled test package

[rick0612]

Finished building gweled for 32-bit and 64-bit.
Changed specs file so both 32-bit and 64-bit can build with only one spec. In order to do that, I had to change the libraries to the matching numbers in both architechures. See the following:

changed librsvg-devel to %{_lib}rsvg2-devel
changed libgnomeui-devel to %{_lib}gnomeui2_0-devel
changed libglade2.0-devel to %{_lib}glade2.0_0-devel

The builds went well and the game installed and played with no problem in both 32-bit and 64-bit.

My first question is; are the library changes OK?

The next question is about submitting. I know I have to submit for testing and critiquing but how do I do that? I have a dropbox account if that helps.

Rick.

EDIT: Hey folks how about some feed back.

When I changed the libraries from the originals to version 2 so we can use one spec file for 32-bit and 64-bit builds, was that a good or bad thing?
When I found the patch was not relevant to PCLOS and removed it, was that a good or bad thing? (I can do the research again and supply links if needed.)
Did I really destroy previous developers' work or improve it?
Is my change log sufficient?

You are begging for packagers; please help new ones with feed back.

[daniel]

Is it working, and installing without any problems on both arch, then you have made a good job.
Congratulations  

Send a pm to Neal, he will send you a account mail for dropbox.

[ghostbunny]

could you first post links to your srpm and the binary rpms for testing

[rick0612]

OK,
Here are the files:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ww0qpbdrw2n37nm/gweled-0.9.1-2rick06122013.src.rpm
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xidd0fyt2uz0okp/gweled-0.9.1-2rick06122013.i586.rpm
https://www.dropbox.com/s/f72c1f24twv8og1/gweled-0.9.1-2rick06122013.x86_64.rpm

[gseaman]

Why did you remove the German descriptions?

Galen

[gseaman]

I built and installed without any problems. 

Galen

[ghostbunny]

Why did you remove the German descriptions?

Galen

+1

in general what was the reason for this rebuild and to remove the patch which is especially for version 0.9.1. I#m not a c/cpp programmer so i can't say what the patch fixes exactly but i don't believe that it would be there when it isn't necessary.

sorry but currently i just see the efforts of other packagers destroyed.

[rick0612]

ghostbunny,

This is a practice rebuild for a new packager. I am looking for constructive criticism.
I researched the patch and found it was built specifically for an Ubuntu permissions issue that they say is irrelevant (I believe it was in bugzilla?). I can't see adding lines that don't add to the value of the program.

Galen,

I can put the German descriptions back. Would that be in respect for the developer?

Rick.

[daniel]

And what is the reason to remove the german description?