[Bug 474787] Review Requrest: stxxl - C++ STL drop-in replacement for extremely large datasets
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=474787 --- Comment #14 from Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com 2009-06-01 05:01:18 EDT --- All members of the packager group may do official package-reviews and package-approvals. -- 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 Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 474787] Review Requrest: stxxl - C++ STL drop-in replacement for extremely large datasets
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=474787 --- Comment #15 from D Haley my...@yahoo.com 2009-06-01 06:50:13 EDT --- I agree with all of the changes made in your SRPM, and support its promotion pending review. I suppose this makes you co-maintainer? Do we need another reviewer? Here are koji builds for the above SRPM, F9 failed, but F10 and F11 are OK. F9 is relatively close to EOL, so I suppose its not a big problem. F9 : http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1386757 F10: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1386748 F11: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1386762 If you consider to bring a GNU Autotools environment (and submit the corresponding patch upstream), and if I can help you, do not hesitate. I think it is not necessarily a good idea to bring a different build system to STXXL, but instead to help upstream to improve their chosen method. I would hesitate to recommend a change of build sys to upstream, unless they expressed an interest in doing so. For this reason I do not have any plans to do such a thing, unless upstream indicate they would be interested. In any case, I don't see this as important to this package for this version. Maybe in a newer upstream version after some petitioning... -- 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 Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 474787] Review Requrest: stxxl - C++ STL drop-in replacement for extremely large datasets
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=474787 --- Comment #16 from D Haley my...@yahoo.com 2009-06-01 06:57:43 EDT --- Hmm I spoke a bit too soon. The use of noarch is causing problems with rpmlint, as noarch is being applied to the main package. If we remove noarch from the -doc section, all is well. -- 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 Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 474787] Review Requrest: stxxl - C++ STL drop-in replacement for extremely large datasets
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=474787 --- Comment #17 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2009-06-01 07:05:31 EDT --- (In reply to comment #12) Note that, as I have not the sponsor status, that is not an official review. However, there are a number of issues (some important, some others less) that I Denis, feel free to reassign this ticket to yourself (and, therefore, proceed with reviewing further). As you're a packager, then you may do the formal review (actually, you're almost finished reviewing this package :)) -- 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 Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 474787] Review Requrest: stxxl - C++ STL drop-in replacement for extremely large datasets
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=474787
--- Comment #12 from Denis Arnaud denis.arnaud_fed...@m4x.org 2009-05-31
21:32:15 EDT ---
[My machine crashed just before I pressed the commit button of the review :( ]
Note that, as I have not the sponsor status, that is not an official review.
However, there are a number of issues (some important, some others less) that I
can point to you (in no particular order).
1. Doxygen, as it is configured, generates .map files (in the doc/html
sub-directory), due to the use of the DOT tool (belonging to the graphviz
package). On some configurations (e.g., my Fedora rawhide/11, with rpmbuild),
some of those files are generated with a zero-length, which rpmlint then
complains of.
There are, at least, two solutions/work-arounds:
1.a. Just drop the use of DOT in the Doxygen configuration file:
HAVE_DOT = NO
as in
http://rmol.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/rmol/trunk/rmol/doc/doxygen_html.cfg.in?revision=183view=markup
As Doxygen replaces with other, simpler, diagrams, that should not be a so
big issue.
1.b. Keep the use of DOT, but:
- Add a 'BuildRequires: graphivz' directive.
- Remove any zero-length-map files after the Doxygen generation
(http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/asterisk/F-11/asterisk.spec?revision=1.51view=markup):
find doc/html -name '*.map' -size 0 -delete
Note that with mock, there is, as is, no zero-length-map-file issue, but the
.map files are not generated, due to the missing 'BuildRequires: graphviz'
directive. Note also that you can not see that in the build.log
(http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=1383290name=build.log) of
Koji, as you have re-directed the output log of Doxygen into a file removed by
mock.
2. Avoid re-directing the output log of Doxygen, so that that log be present in
the build.log generated by mock (and Koji):
make doxy doxymake.log 2 doxymake.stderr
==
make doxy
3. You may consider creating a separate -doc sub-package for both the HTML
Doxygen-generated documentation and the Latex-generated tutorial
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Documentation).
4. I would rather keep the PDF version of the tutorial, rather than the DVI
one. Moreover, we could alter the Makefile so that it generates only the PDF
version (which is now the default with latex).
5. In the %files section, you should take ownership of the %{_includedir}/bits
directory
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership):
%dir %{_includedir}/bits/
6. Still in the %files sections, it may be better to use a wildcard for the
libraries, as it will still hold for future versions of the library:
%{_libdir}/libstxxl.so.*
7. You may replace instances of stxxl with the %{name} macro, and of 1.2.1 with
the %{version} macro
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Macros). For instance:
---
URL: http://%{name}.sourceforge.net
Source0: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
Patch0: %{name}-build-shared.patch
Patch1: %{name}-build-shared-makefile.patch
---
x. The build system (makefiles) appears to be very specific to that package,
and it may not be portable. For instance, you have to install the files
manually yourself in the specification file. If you consider to bring a GNU
Autotools environment (and submit the corresponding patch upstream), and if I
can help you, do not hesitate.
--
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
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 474787] Review Requrest: stxxl - C++ STL drop-in replacement for extremely large datasets
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=474787 --- Comment #13 from Denis Arnaud denis.arnaud_fed...@m4x.org 2009-05-31 21:37:09 EDT --- If it may help, the above comments (plus a few small others) have been integrated into a new version of the specification file: Spec URL: http://denisarnaud.fedorapeople.org/stxxl/121/6/stxxl.spec (as well as the corresponding Source RPM: http://denisarnaud.fedorapeople.org/stxxl/121/6/stxxl-1.2.1-6.fc10.src.rpm) -- 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 Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 474787] Review Requrest: stxxl - C++ STL drop-in replacement for extremely large datasets
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=474787 --- Comment #11 from D Haley my...@yahoo.com 2009-05-29 10:28:04 EDT --- Thanks for the pointers. I have re-enabled the latex documentation. SPEC URL: http://dhd.selfip.com/427e/stxxl-5.spec SRPM URL: http://dhd.selfip.com/427e/stxxl-1.2.1-5.fc10.src.rpm $ rpmlint -vi stxxl.spec ../SRPMS/stxxl-1.2.1-5.fc10.src.rpm ../RPMS/i386/stxxl-1.2.1-5.fc10.i386.rpm stxxl.src: I: checking stxxl.i386: I: checking 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Koji: F9: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1383288 F10: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1383287 -- 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 Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 474787] Review Requrest: stxxl - C++ STL drop-in replacement for extremely large datasets
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=474787
Denis Arnaud denis.arnaud_fed...@m4x.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||denis.arnaud_fed...@m4x.org
--- Comment #10 from Denis Arnaud denis.arnaud_fed...@m4x.org 2009-05-27
07:13:06 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Disabling the latex generation causes all arches to build successfully.
Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=981048
Within Fedora versions prior to 10 (as well as for all the RedHat/CentOS
versions, including EL-5), the Latex package was TeTex, whereas it is now
TexLive. An example of how to handle the different packages corresponding to
different versions is given in
http://rmol.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/rmol/trunk/rmol/rmol.spec.in?revision=214view=markup
Basically, you may use the following:
%if 0%{?fedora} = 10
BuildArch: noarch
BuildRequires: texlive-latex, texlive-dvips
%endif
%if 0%{?fedora} 10
BuildRequires: tetex-latex, tetex-dvips
%endif
BuildRequires: doxygen, ghostscript
--
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
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 474787] Review Requrest: stxxl - C++ STL drop-in replacement for extremely large datasets
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=474787
--- Comment #9 from D Haley my...@yahoo.com 2009-05-24 05:21:02 EDT ---
SPEC URL: http://dhd.selfip.com/427e/stxxl-4.spec
SRPM URL: http://dhd.selfip.com/427e/stxxl-1.2.1-4.fc10.src.rpm
* Regarding %install section - you may shorten it a bit by replacing
Done.
The %build section still doesn't honour %optflags. You should fix your spec
in the following way:
I added optflags, but the macro doesn't (on my system) contain -fPIC, therefore
removing PIC causes errors when running rpmlint hence I now have
echo OPT=%{optflags} -fPIC make.settings.local
In any case, duplicate -fPICs are not going to cause any harm when seen by GCC.
You also don't need to explicitly install doc-files. Just enumerate them in
%files section properly.
Doc section updated.
Consider adding README and TROUBLESHOOTING to %doc.
Done.
* Sun May 24 2009 mycae(a!t)yahoo.com 1.2.1-4
- Used doc macro to install docs previously manually installed
- Added README and TROUBLESHOOTING to docs
- Added otpflags macro to build settings
- Use install program rather than cp for the install of lib
RPM Lint:
$ rpmlint -vi stxxl.spec ../SRPMS/stxxl-1.2.1-4.fc10.src.rpm
../RPMS/i386/stxxl-1.2.1-4.fc10.i386.rpm
stxxl.src: I: checking
stxxl.i386: I: checking
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
--
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
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 474787] Review Requrest: stxxl - C++ STL drop-in replacement for extremely large datasets
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=474787
--- Comment #8 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2009-05-23 07:54:52
EDT ---
Notes:
* The %build section still doesn't honour %optflags. You should fix your spec
in the following way:
- echo OPT=-O2 -fPIC make.settings.local
+ echo OPT=%{optflags} make.settings.local
* Regarding %install section - you may shorten it a bit by replacing
mkdir %{buildroot}
mkdir -p %{buildroot}/%{_libdir}/
cp ./lib/libstxxl.so %{buildroot}/%{_libdir}/libstxxl.so.%{version}
with
install -p -D -m 0755 ./lib/libstxxl.so
%{buildroot}/%{_libdir}/libstxxl.so.%{version}
* You also don't need to explicitly install doc-files. Just enumerate them in
%files section properly. Let's assume, that you wish to install TROUBLESHOOTING
file as %doc - all you need is to add
%files
%doc TROUBLESHOOTING
and rpmbuild will cd into rpmbuild/BUILD/stxxl-1.2.1 directory and will search
TROUBLESHOOTING here.
So you should remove the following lines:
mkdir -p %{buildroot}/%{_docdir}/
#Install Documentation
mkdir -p %{buildroot}/%{_docdir}/stxxl-1.2.1/
mkdir -p %{buildroot}/%{_docdir}/stxxl-1.2.1/doxy
cp -pr doc/doxy/* %{buildroot}/%{_docdir}/stxxl-1.2.1/doxy
#cp -pr doc/tutorial/tutorial.pdf %{buildroot}/%{_docdir}/stxxl-1.2.1/
#cp -p doc/tutorial/tutorial.dvi %{buildroot}/%{_docdir}/stxxl-1.2.1/
mkdir -p %{buildroot}/%{_docdir}/stxxl-1.2.1/examples/
cp -p doc/tutorial/examples/* %{buildroot}/%{_docdir}/stxxl-1.2.1/examples/
cp -p config_example %{buildroot}/%{_docdir}/stxxl-1.2.1/
and just add
%doc doc/doxy/* doc/tutorial/examples/* config_example
to %files devel section. Of course, docs will be installed into
%{_docdir}/stxxl-devel-1.2.1/ directory.
* Consider adding README and TROUBLESHOOTING to %doc.
--
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
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 474787] Review Requrest: stxxl - C++ STL drop-in replacement for extremely large datasets
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=474787 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||lemen...@gmail.com Version|9 |rawhide AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lemen...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #7 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2009-04-23 15:12:44 EDT --- I'll review it. -- 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 Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 474787] Review Requrest: stxxl - C++ STL drop-in replacement for extremely large datasets
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=474787
--- Comment #6 from D Haley my...@yahoo.com 2009-01-14 07:31:36 EDT ---
SPEC URL: http://dhd.selfip.com/427e/stxxl-3.spec
SRPM URL: http://dhd.selfip.com/427e/stxxl-1.2.1-3.fc10.src.rpm
Rpmlint:
SRPM: empty
SPEC: empty
RPM: empty
Summary of -devel package is not short and concise as recommended by the
guidelines, but two sentences squeezed into an overlong line.
I shortened it in the main package, though I thought it was pretty short to
begin with. In the devel section it has been corrected, as it was clearly
overlong. The main summary is slightly shortened but cannot be shortened
further without losing information.
Run rpmlint also on your src.rpm
My apologies if I had not -- I thought I had, as stated in comment 3. Clearly
not, as running it produces a myriad of errors.
src.rpm download URL gives 404 Not Found
Again, that's just sloppy on my part -- I didn't transfer it to the server.
Both the old and the new have been uploaded.
%description of the -devel package is the same as the description of the main
package.
Fixed.
-devel pkg typically must Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} to stay
in sync with the main package.
Fixed
%files devel section contains unowned directories!
Fixed -- would have been evident had i run rpmlint correctly.
%files devel section is missing %defattr parameter
Done.
Note : That could also be the answer to your problem with the .so symlink. The
symlink must be in the -devel package, and the -devel package requires the main
package which contains the library file.
It wasn't that -- I worked it out in the end with the help of
http://en.opensuse.org/Shared_Library_Packaging_Policy . Which was very clear,
both in procedure and rationale. Seems to keep rpmlint happy and matches what
is happening in other packages in my /usr/lib/.
I hope this package is less sloppy than the last attempt!
--
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
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 474787] Review Requrest: stxxl - C++ STL drop-in replacement for extremely large datasets
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=474787
--- Comment #5 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net 2009-01-13
15:15:11 EDT ---
* Summary of -devel package is not short and concise as recommended by the
guidelines, but two sentences squeezed into an overlong line.
* Run rpmlint also on your src.rpm
* src.rpm download URL gives 404 Not Found
* %description of the -devel package is the same as the description of the main
package. That can't be right. Typically, you can cut down on that and simply
say something like: This package contains development files for compiling
software that uses %{name}.
* -devel pkg typically must Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} to stay
in sync with the main package.
Note : That could also be the answer to your problem with the .so symlink. The
symlink must be in the -devel package, and the -devel package requires the main
package which contains the library file.
* %files devel section is missing %defattr parameter
* %files devel section contains unowned directories! Either add the missing
%dir %{_docdir}/stxxl-1.2.1
%dir %{_includedir}/stxxl
or use equivalent entries to include these directories and their contents
recursively. You would do this by removing the * wildcard that you use
currently.
--
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
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 474787] Review Requrest: stxxl - C++ STL drop-in replacement for extremely large datasets
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=474787 --- Comment #4 from D Haley my...@yahoo.com 2008-12-28 06:09:26 EDT --- 3 week ping? -- 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 Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 474787] Review Requrest: stxxl - C++ STL drop-in replacement for extremely large datasets
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=474787 --- Comment #1 from manuel wolfshant [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-05 07:15:33 EDT --- http://dhd.selfip.com/427e/stxxl-1.spec is not a valid URL and under http://dhd.selfip.com/427e/ I see nothing relevant. Usually .a are statically build libs and they require special packaging. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exclusion_of_Static_Libraries According to http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=980986name=build.log, your package does not respect the mandatory Fedora compiler flags, as described by http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Compiler_flags. And not only the ppc build fails, all of them do. -- 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 Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 474787] Review Requrest: stxxl - C++ STL drop-in replacement for extremely large datasets
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=474787 --- Comment #2 from D Haley [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-05 07:21:53 EDT --- Disabling the latex generation causes all arches to build successfully. Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=981048 -- 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 Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 474787] Review Requrest: stxxl - C++ STL drop-in replacement for extremely large datasets
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=474787 --- Comment #3 from D Haley [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-05 10:10:18 EDT --- SPEC URL: http://dhd.selfip.com/427e/stxxl-2.spec SRPM URL: http://dhd.selfip.com/427e/stxxl-1.2.1-2.fc9.src.rpm Changelog * Sat Dec 06 2008 mycae(a!t)yahoo.com 1.2.1-2 - Removed latex build buildrequires - Patched makefiles to provide shared instead of static libs - made doxygen log to file, due to excessively verbose output Rpmlint: SRPM:empty SPEC:empty RPM: $ rpmlint -iv RPMS/i386/stxxl-1.2.1-2.fc9.i386.rpm stxxl.i386: I: checking stxxl.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libstxxl-0.so A development file (usually source code) is located in a non-devel package. If you want to include source code in your package, be sure to create a development package. Now this is causing problems, If i put the link in the devel package it says it must be part of the package proper and emits an error. If I put it in the main, as I have done now, it emits this warning. The libstxxl-0.so is simply a symlink to libstxxl.so.0. Running ldconfig -n during %install instead of hand-cranking the symlink makes no difference, as the net result is the same. It simply makes the symlink using the soname of the so. This soname is the same value that I have set in the build patch (patch0). Koji scratch: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=981419 All succeeded. Issues: I don't build the user manual. This however can be grabbed from their sf page by users, so unless someone knows the solution off the top of their head to the latex problem, I will probably leave it. -- 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 Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
