https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1028741
Antonio Trande <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(anto.trande@gmail | |.com) | --- Comment #4 from Antonio Trande <[email protected]> --- (In reply to David Tardon from comment #2) > * I do not think it is a good idea to hardcode Fedora compilation * * > options through a patch. Why not patch the Makefiles to use "CFLAGS = > $(CFLAGS) -D..." (similarly for CXXFLAGS) and then pass CFLAGS="%{optflags}" > as an argument to make? > ** And I see that you have already solved it that way... So the patches can > just be dropped, right? Makefiles already have CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS lines without any patches; early, I had patched these lines to use the right flags for the RPM building. But in this way, and still because of an unknown reason, the patches don't work in EPEL. So I decided to use QMAKE_CFLAGS/QMAKE_CXXFLAGS directly. > > * ## Fix 'src/pointset.cpp' compilation error. > sed -i '36a #include <algorithm>' src/digitdoc.cpp > sed -i '32a #include <algorithm>' src/pointset.cpp > > Is upstream aware of this problem? Yes. http://sourceforge.net/p/digitizer/discussion/229857/thread/2ba6cf0a/#9c7d > > * Is there any reason why you are putting .cpp files to /include (or > headers, for that matter? The package does not contain a library.) No reason. If they are useless, then -devel packages can be removed ? -- 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 _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
