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=486390 --- Comment #4 from Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-03-16 14:08:56 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) > Thank you for reviewing the package. > * BR: > - Latex related cmake files look for "convert" utility of ImageMagic and will > fail if it does not exist. I'm not sure if it is actually used during > documentation generation. - Then okay. > * Requires: > - Yes, each distro (F9, F10 and F11) use a different name! I'll either add > conditional statements for each distro or a file level dependency. I think > package dependency is preferred so I'll add that. (any suggestions?) - Package dependency is preferred than file dependency. > - Yes. Ruby is highly integrated into simspark and is used to glue different > plugins and subsystems together to create a functional part. So, I think there > is no need to create subpackages for it. (to be more specific, zeitgeist > library requires ruby, and other main libraries(oxygen and kerosin) require > zeitgeist). - Thank you for explanation. > * ldconfig: > - Yes, it is the default behavior of the upstream package. But, while most of > the libraries are plugins, some of them are libraries which executable files > will be linked to. Should I create a config file in /etc/ld.so.conf.d for > /usr/lib{64}/simspark ?! - Theoretically if the binaries trying to link against libraries under %_libdir/simspark use rpath, there is no need to use ld.so.conf method. However if some of the libraries under %_libdir/simspark are really _system wide_ libraries, I would suggest that such libraries should be moved under %_libdir. -- 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