Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461757
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Cagney <cagney(a)redhat.com> 2008-09-11 14:52:33 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Suggestions:-
1) you can altenatively use version as
%define upstreamid 20080818
Version: 0.%{upstreamid}
This will help you in future if you switch to releases like 1.0 or 1.0.0
otherwise you need to use always date as version.
ah, i was wondering about that; I've changed it.
doh, missed the %postun; added
I've added the -p
4) Though not mandatory but good if you use defattr as
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/CreatingPackageHowTo#.2...
I've changed this.
5) Package build is failed
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=819456
You should use make as
make %{?_smp_mflags} CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS -I."
I've added the flags; I'm also going to check an x86-64 build (I needed to
finish reviving my fedora access).
I've removed it.
It was in case a developer needed it (I think we should start making available
profiled libraries also but that is another story :-).
(In reply to comment #4)
I see no versioned libdwarf.so.*.*.* symlinks to libdwarf.so are
created and
not included in libdwarf rpm. Do you want to create them?
In that case then you need to follow
- MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1),
then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel
package.
For the moment no.
--
Configure bugmail:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.