https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2052939
--- Comment #3 from Alain V. <alain.vigne.14(a)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
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2052939