https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264686
Antonio Trande <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |[email protected] --- Comment #1 from Antonio Trande <[email protected]> --- Hi Marco and welcome. Some initial comments about your SPEC file. ##libitpp - The ITPP libraries are compiled and named as 'libitpp'; using this name for your package is the best choice. - Use Source0 for the source code archive. - All documentation files are easily packaged by using '%doc'. - Make sure that 'Make' is verbose by using the CMAKE_VERBOSE_MAKEFILE:BOOL=TRUE option. - "make -C build install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}" is better than cd build make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} cd .. ##libitpp-devel - There is an arch-specific dependence between -devel and main package; Append Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} - These BuildRequires calls are already listed for the main package. Redundant here: Requires: fftw-devel Requires: blas-devel Requires: lapack-devel ##libitpp-doc - HTML documentation is not arch-specific. Append "BuildArch: noarch" - It's a stand-alone package that does not need the main one - Use the RPM built-in macro: /usr/bin/itpp-config is %{_bindir}/itpp-config and you don't need to set its permission explicitely. Also, you're packaging extra files in /usr/share/itpp for Octave and Python i think. I don't know if they are still under development (http://sourceforge.net/p/itpp/git/ci/master/tree/extras/) and if their packaging is useful. -- 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
