https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884
--- Comment #34 from Andy Mender <andymenderu...@gmail.com> ---
> I don't see a pkgconfig provided by gmp-devel or libmpc-devel.
No worries then.
> I got rid of the remaining libtool archive. I'm afraid I don't understand
> what header files or static objects shouldn't be there. This is a compiler,
> those are required for it to function.
> It's a compiler, the headers are necessary as far as I'm aware.
Unfortunately, I don't have much experience with packaging entire compiler
toolchains. I'll ask in the fedora-devel mailing list to get some extra intel.
> I'm not actually using the $RPM_BUILD_ROOT macro, I'm modifying a script that
> uses the $RPM_BUILD_ROOT environment variable. I could switch to using
> $RPM_BUILD_ROOT elsewhere in the spec, but then I'm mixing macro formats.
I know. I just left it in as it's a part of the review matrix.
> License line was definitely messed up, I fixed it the best I could matching
> the gcc, binutils, and gdb packages. I also copied how they handled license
> files. I don't understand the comment about copying.c, I'm assuming it's not
> supposed to be marked as a license file.
I saw this in a couple of other C/C++ packages as well. The file does actually
contain the license, but it's not a license file per-se. It merely generates it
via consecutive print calls.
> I agree this is gross, but it's not in "regular" gcc's ld path, so I think
> it's okay?
I think it's okay.
> I'm not sure I understand. I've added some missing requires (the C++ compiler
> now requires the C compiler, the C compiler now requires binutils), but if I
> add the "Requires: {name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}" requested, I just
> get packages that are uninstallable. Is there some documentation I can look
> at to see an example of what's being requested?
Here's the section from the Packaging Guidelines:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_requiring_base_package
It typically applies to situations in which you have a base package and
multiple subpackages. I might be misunderstanding this as well, but I think
`fedora-review` here expects that every component should be tied to the main
%{target}-toolchain package. But then again, we want some packages to be
installable independently, but only be built together as a complete toolchain,
right?
--
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
