[Bug 186566] Review Request: bsdiff - binary diff/patch utility

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: bsdiff - binary diff/patch utility


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=186566





------- Additional Comments From matthias@xxxxxxxxxxxx  2006-03-30 11:26 EST -------
Well, trying to rebuild was yet another story :-)
- Why force CC=gcc? It's the default with GNU make, isn't it?
- You patch the makefile in the install section, but don't use "make install"...
you should document that (with a quick comment), since it's to fix the
Makefile's validity!
- CFLAGS wasn't set to use the optflags.
- bzip2-devel build requirement was missing
Maybe others...
I've modified your patch and made changes to the spec :
http://ftp.es6.freshrpms.net/tmp/extras/bsdiff/

I've taken the approach to "heavily" patch the Makefile instead of manually
installing the files, since if in a later version the Makefile is modified to
build more binaries, they won't get missed, and if it's in a way that the patch
doesn't apply cleanly anymore, you'll instantly know and give it the attention
it requires :-)
One could even go one step further and also create the parent directories inside
the Makefile instead of before calling make install... why not.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

-- 
fedora-extras-list mailing list
fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora General Discussion]     [Fedora Art]     [Fedora Docs]     [Fedora Package Review]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite Backpacking]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux