https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2052939
--- Comment #3 from Alain V. alain.vigne.14@gmail.com --- (In reply to Petr Menšík from comment #2) Hi Petr, thank you for your interest in this lib, which is a follow-up work of our previous thoughts on librnd...
Why is this package called libfungw, when upstream repository and page refers to it only as fungw? Does that conflict with existing fedora package?
The 2 names are present in this proposal. There is a meta package called fungw (the %{srcname}) and libfungw. I know this complicates the .spec file, but it is a "request" from upstream dev. http://www.repo.hu/projects/fungw/packaging.txt See also the Debian page https://packages.debian.org/sid/libs/fungw
I think fungw is better name for the package.
Why do you have %{name}-perl aliases and then use
%package -n %{libperl} ??
%package perl without -n produces just %{name}-perl by default. It is simpler, cleaner and easier to read. Unless different prefix is required, use just suffixes for subpackages. There are multiple definitions not really required.
Just use:
%package perl Requires: %{name}...
%description perl Blabla
%files perl %{_bindir}/whatever
I tend to agree with you... If I can manage to implement this, I'll keep your proposal.
It the application uses dlopen, I think it should have own subdirectory %{_libdir}/%{name}, where it would store its own shared code/libraries. %_libdir is reserved for libraries used by ld.so.
You are correct. I need to add this line.
I'll update this ticket with new .spec + SRPM as soon as I can. Regards