W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-amaya@w3.org > January to March 2008

Re: amaya for fedora 8?

From: Matej Cepl <mcepl@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 16:39:48 +0100
To: www-amaya@w3.org
Message-ID: <43ic55xi2c.ln2@ppp1053.in.ipex.cz>

On 2008-01-08, 01:42 GMT, Martin Duerst wrote:
> I think your comment is very important. But to make it more 
> valuable,
> could you be more specific, e.g. giving examples of what's broken
> with the build system, or which system libraries should or shouldn't
> be used but are not,...

I am just in the process of trying to rebuild Amaya on Fedora 8, 
and I cannot say that I am successful -- SPEC file (packaging 
metadata for .rpm packages) is 
http://mcepl.fedorapeople.org/rpms/amaya.spec (non-functional 
source package is 
Log of whole build process is 

What I try to do is to emulate Debian package (and apply its 
patches), which try to use system libraries of libpng, libjpeg, 
raptor, redland, libwww and some small fixes (something 
security-related and build problems on 64bit machines). Whole 
debian diff against upstream package (where some non-free files 
were removed) is 
Apparently, the only imporantant patches are those in 
debian/patches directory.

There are two problems which I see:

1) around line 2188 of the rpmbuild-log.txt are problems with 
   compilation of TemplateT.TRA. I have no clue what they are 
   about, but I will deal with them only when I will fix the 
   second problem.
2) When bin/amaya_bin is being linked (line 2919 and its 
   surroundings) linking crashes (version of system libwww is 

   query.o: In function `AHTProfile_newAmaya':
   undefi ned reference to `HTTransportInit()'
   undefined reference to `HTTransferEncoderInit(_HTList*)'
   undefined reference to `HTMIMEInit()'
   collect2: ld returned 1 exit status

   Apparently problem may be related to the fact that query.c 
   (which is C++ source file, not plain C one as would extension 
   suggest) somehow mangles need for C-library v. C++-library.

Any ideas, what's going on, please?

Now, to be exact about answering your questions:

1) "Broken" is probably too strong word, but I don't like the 
   idea of separate tree in %{prefix}/Amaya -- libraries should 
   go to /usr/lib{,64}, binaries to /usr/bin, non-arch specific 
   files to /usr/share, system-wide configuration to /etc, etc.  
   but it shouldn't be all stuffed in one separate tree.
2) What is IMHO broken (aside from small issues like C++ files 
   having .c extension etc.) is that basically the patches 
   available in Debian (allowing to use --enable-system-{name of 
   the library} and similar stuff) is not part of the upstream 
   tarball. If the particular version of ABI is required, just 
   say so, but including multi-megabyte library (and not only 
   once) inside of the tarball (wx) is just broken, and (I guess) 
   one of the reasons why many distros (aside from the ones 
   managed by maniacs like Debian Developers -- that's meant as 
   a praise) don't include amaya anymore (in Fedora world it was 
   dropped more than year and half ago and I cannot find it on 
   SuSE website either -- which I am not much experienced with, 
   so I may be wrong).
   For example, reading 
   http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-2771737.html it seems 
   Gentoo folks have amaya in their databases but given comments 
   by maintainers like 
   http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=75616#c14 I don't see 
   much happines about it, and it seems to be orphaned on Gentoo 
   as well. (note: I am not Gentoo user, but when three out of 
   four distros I have searched dropped Amaya, there seems to be 
   some problem).
3) I have tried 
   (when it was available, it isn't anymore -- BTW, why are not 
   src.rpm packages available?) and it did work exceedingly 
   poorly with AIGLX display, but even without that I had black 
   rectangles randomly happening all over the edited document, so 
   much so, that it was almost unusable. So, the reason why 
   I spent many hours trying to package amaya was that I would 
   love to have any amaya at all ;-).


Received on Tuesday, 8 January 2008 15:44:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:39 UTC