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=476398 --- Comment #20 from Conrad Meyer <[email protected]> 2009-03-19 13:40:26 EDT --- (In reply to comment #19) > Find out where the -I/usr/local/include and -L/usr/local/lib come from, then > get rid of them for sake of reproducible builds. No issue for builds in clean > buildroots. Not clean for ordinary builds on installed Fedora systems where > /usr/local might contain locally built stuff. This doesn't matter on Koji or in mock. > > %package devel > > According to the guidelines, this ought to > Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} > to enforce a matching pair of development files and binaries. > This guideline alone should make a packager realise "oh, wait, there are > shared > libs in this package, so not creating a main library package for them would be > strange". Except you don't require the main package if one doesn't exist. It's not obvious. > In reply to comment 3: > > - fix the soname mess, probably install to a subdirectory of _libdir? > > > %{_libdir}/%{name}/*.so > > %{_libdir}/%{name}/lib*.a > > That doesn't fix the "soname mess". That's a comma. It's there to separate two ideas. > It makes things worse, because you've moved the shared libs out of run-timer > linker's search path. Any application linked to these libs would fail to > start. Right, and the exactly one application that cares isn't in Fedora yet and ships its own copy of eclib. > The static archive would not be found either at build-time. It would be > necessary to adjust the compiler's library search path (-L%{_libdir}/%{name}), > which probably no existing application does, because it expects to find the > eclib libraries in default search path. Doesn't matter, it's easy enough to adjust search path at build time for static libs. > Further, the shared libraries [if moved incorrectly as in current spec file] > are still seen by rpmbuild's dependency generators. They still lead to > automatic SONAME "Provides" and "Requires", even if the libraries won't be > found at run-time. They can be moved back if you like. > Noticing that the package builds several test programs, consider including a > %check section for "make check". It is good packaging-practise to run a > test-suite at build-time unless it is known/confirmed to be broken. I'm happy to take a patch. -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list [email protected] http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
