https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187030
--- Comment #12 from Joachim Frieben <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #11) > Both packages differ a lot. Not just the src.rpm, also the build results. Do > you think it's possible to agree on the packaging of "giza"? The SRPMs look different because for upstream release 0.9.4, I had replaced the homebrewn make system by standard GNU Autools, and this new package has been adopted by upstream. As a matter of fact, the main developer D. Price has granted me commit rights for the upstream code repository which is also beneficial for supporting a future Fedora package. The alternate package by C. Meng is based on the obsolete release 0.9.3 which requires a lot of dirty hacks in the spec file. Moreover, it completely lacks support for (c)pgplot which most users are more interested in than in using giza itself; it actually packages the giza backend alone and not the (c)pgplot wrapper libraries. > %install > rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT Ok, I can change that. I am unpleasantly surprised, however, that the spec file, and in particular the parts incriminated by you have been provided by the very official eclipse-fedorapackager plugin (!) after precisely choosing a Fedora library project. -- 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
