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=521983 --- Comment #7 from Matthew Harmsen <[email protected]> 2009-10-08 14:01:33 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=364163) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=364163) Suggested changes for osutil.spec The following is from an email from '[email protected]': the best and cleanest way to fix the way that dogtag builds i think is to do the specs like the attached osutil spec file. the biggest change is passing in the variables to ant from the spec file rather than using perl to grep through the tarballs spec file. the main issue is that the spec file in the tarball is irrelevant the canonical specfile is what will be in fedora's cvs. at times it will be modified outside of the maintainers control. those modifications must be preserved. the attached spec file cleans up the unnecessary macro proliferation. it works very similar to how we handle configure for the ant use case. its much easier to read and follow. it doesnt build as ants xml needs some patching but gives you the idea. we likely should setup the ant xml to have a sane default if the user doesn't pass in values. there is no need to run ldconfig as the .so files are not in %{_libdir} http://www.javalobby.org/java/forums/t102482.html gives a small amount of insight into why we should be using System.load("some-absolute-path") and not System.loadLibrary("some-path") for the jni interface. basically it ensures someone doesn't hijack your load call. with there own .so -- 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
