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=731191
--- Comment #5 from Richard Shaw <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com> 2011-08-17 09:12:15 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #4)
1. MUST: build doesn't use $RPM_OPT_FLAGS. maybe use something
like:
--- configure.opt 2011-08-17 07:47:12.275486930 -0500
+++ configure 2011-08-17 07:52:24.599256027 -0500
@@ -74,7 +74,7 @@
fi
if [ "$OPT" = 'yes' ]; then
- echo 'opt = -O3' >>Makefile
+ echo 'opt = -O3 $(RPM_OPT_FLAGS)' >>Makefile
fi
if [ "$X11" = 'yes' ]; then
I'll get this updated and see if a patch wouldn't be better then a bunch of sed
hacks. I usually just sed update "CFLAGS =" to "CFLAGS +="
2. MUST. static library build/packaged. Please provide
justification/rationale for doing so, or remove it.
Yeah, I was wondering about that. I only packaged it because it built it. I
guess I just need to "rm -f" it so I don't get an "installed but
unpackaged"
error
3. SHOULD. In %files, be explicit about what soname to package, so
future abi
bumps don't come as a surprise, use something like
%files
%{_libdir}/libspnav.so.0*
instead?
OK
4. SHOULD. Given all the configure/makefile hacks (optflags,
DESTDIR, lib64)
in the .spec, I'm wondering if it may be more worthwhile to make an
upstreamable patch instead? I can help do that, if that's agreeable with you.
I'll ask but these makefiles are VERY simple and the packages have not been
updated recently so I wonder how active upstream is.
I'll post a new spec and SRPM shortly.
--
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.