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=492164 --- Comment #9 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx> 2009-04-04 04:25:27 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8) > (In reply to comment #7) > > rpmlint output: > > chealpix.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libchealpix.so > > chealpix.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libchealpix.so > > exit@xxxxxxxxxxx > > chealpix-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation > > healpix-fortran.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libgif.so > > healpix-fortran.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libhealpix.so > > healpix-fortran-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation > > 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. > > I believe these are OK, right? I mean, we don't want to craft a SONAME, do we? > We can still ask upstream though. Probably yes, these are just warnings anyway. > > - Did you send the shared library patch upstream? IIRC some package sponsors > > have frowned on Fedora specific patches to build shared libraries. > > Heh, well, no, I had a little motivation fixing utterly broken makefiles. I may > send it upstream, but I'm quite sure it breaks something about the static > library compilation, and in fact does it impossible to compile statically w/o > modifying the code. I'm not sure they would accept this. Yeah; I spent some time some months ago trying to figure out how to package this, but very quickly found out that I had no idea of how to do it. Your example with the C part helped me get the Fortran stuff working. > > - Even though there is only one C header, it might be logical to put it into > > the same place as the Fortran module files. > > Well, yes, I had exactly the same thought. You see, I decided not to change > location when there was not Fortran module. I believe it might be a bad > decision as well. We would need to change each program that includes it to > -I%{_includedir}/healpix it, the very same thing we do with cfitsio. I believe > leaving it in its upstream-decided traditional location has its upsides as > well. Well, if upstream uses includedir, then I don't see any reason to change it. It's just one file anyway. Still, I'm not sure about how logical it is; to compile a Fortran binding you still need to supply -I/usr/include/healpix. You should make a comment about this to healpix-devel. > I have no problem moving it if you insist on it though. > > > - Maybe Fortran package should be named just 'healpix'. > > You decide. I see F90 library is called "libhealpix" in contrast to C's > "libchealpix", which makes me tend to agree. Depends on where would a typical > user of that library expect it to find. Honestly, I'm not exactly that kind of > person (and am, in fact, secretly expecting you to comaintain the package and > take care of the Fortran bindings ;) > > Shortly put -- you seem to know the library much better than me, so I'd prefer > stuff like naming packages and shifting files around up to you. Yes, in retrospect I think "healpix" is best for the name of the Fortran package and healpix-devel for the Fortran development modules, since IIUC Healpix started out as a purely Fortran package and got the C, IDL and Java stuff later. I don't use healpix myself (I'm in materials physics), but I have a few friends who use it. I can comaintain the package with you. > > MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base > > package using a fully versioned dependency. NEEDSFIX > > - fortran-devel must require fortran since the libraries are in fortran. > > Hah, this was your code, no? ;) > Anyways, will fix. Yes, it was :) > New package (probably just fixing the MUST items) following shortly. OK. Also, it occurred to me that there is a check phase that should be enabled: make c-test and make f90-test -- 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