Hi again, Debarshi 'Rishi' Ray wrote: >>> 2. Why are you invoking ./configure directly instead of using >>> '%configure' in the '%build' stanza? >>> > > >> OK, fixed (reason was related to the following, but %configure is still >> OK, so I use it now) >> > > Some of the flags that you are passing manually are automatically > taken care of by the %configure macro. You could remove the > unnecessary ones and use the rpmbuild defaults. > Not true AFAICT (looking at Fedora Core 5 when I say this). Don't have access to a more recent machine for testing at this point (I can correct these things once I get CVS access for this package). Here is what I get on FC5: + ./configure --host=i686-redhat-linux-gnu --build=i686-redhat-linux-gnu --target=i386-redhat-linux --program-prefix= --prefix=/usr --exec-prefix=/usr --bindir=/usr/bin --sbindir=/usr/sbin --sysconfdir=/etc --datadir=/usr/share --includedir=/usr/include --libdir=/usr/lib --libexecdir=/usr/libexec --localstatedir=/var --sharedstatedir=/usr/com --mandir=/usr/share/man --infodir=/usr/share/info CXX=g++ CC=gcc F77=gfortran --enable-static=no --enable-shared=yes --disable-mpi > >> I have uploaded the updated files to the *NEW* location (don't have my >> fedorapeople key here) of: >> >> http://ascend.cheme.cmu.edu/ftp/jpye/ >> > > It would be better if you briefly mentioned what you actually fixed > instead of "Fixing for Debarshi Ray's feedback." in the ChangeLog. > That would help others to know what actually happened. > Fair point. Much more important to note the changes once we get to the point of a released package, of course. Wonder if you might be prepare to mark this 'review +' now (if you are able)? If not, perhaps it would be better to continue this discussion on Bugzilla? Cheers JP -- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers -- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
