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=487637 Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #1 from Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-02-27 13:38:49 EDT --- Some notes: - When currently upstream only provides static archive and does not provide shared library, patching Makefiles on vendor side to create share library may cause annnoying problem, e.g. https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2009-February/msg00047.html Also there is no guarrantee that the API of the created shared library won't change when the major version of the package version does not change. Current Fedora guidelines provides a way to package static archives (when unavoidable) and for this case I think shipping static archive instead of patching on Fedora side is much safer: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries Note: When switching to creating static archive, passing "-fPIC" is still needed if the archive is needed for creating shared libraries in other application. - Your package does not build on ppc64: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1205561 Adding -------------------------------------------------------- cp -p /usr/lib/rpm/config.{sub,guess} config/ -------------------------------------------------------- at the end of %prep will make the build succeed. ref: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-February/msg02238.html -- 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@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review