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: CGAL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199168 ------- Additional Comments From laurent.rineau__fedora_extras@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2006-08-02 03:50 EST ------- 1/ I know that static libraries should be avoided, when possible (see my not in comment #1). In that case, the upstream developpers do not provide shared library for libCGALQt.a and libcore++.a. For libcore++, I could package Core separately (http://www.cs.nyu.edu/exact/core/download/core_v1.7/). But, for libCGALQt.a, do you see a solution? Waiting for the next release which could have shared version for all libraries cannot be a solution: CGAL releases come each year. It was really a chance that I manage to make the documention files removed from the upstream tarball of CGAL-3.2.1 (for license issues). 2/ As regards the macros... yes I know. This spec file is configurable, so that it can be applied to internal release of CGAL as well. What do you mean by redefining name of version or release? If I am not wrong, the conditionals make them be defined only once. If reviewers agreed that it is two much, I will pruned the spec file to remove the macro, as if the default values were hard-coded. 3/ For the upstream source tarball, I do not understand your point. spectool (from package fedora-rpmdevtools) can understand the macros and give the full URLs. I know pretty well the packaging guidelines. Please give me pointers to paragraphs that I could have missed. -- 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-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review