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=501924 --- Comment #4 from Erik van Pienbroek <erik-fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-05-21 14:38:17 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) > Thanks for taking! That was quick! I'm waiting for somebody to review my review requests, so it's best to do other reviews in return :) > > For readability, you might want to move this piece of code to the top of the > > .spec file: > > # don't run "make test" by default > > %{?_without_check: %define _without_check 0} > > %{!?_without_check: %define _without_check 1} > > This is again from the native spec file. I kept it there to minimize the > differences. So the %check section could probably completely go... Yeah, I've also seen it in the native spec file. However, I still think such pieces of code need to be near the top of .spec files as it helps people who are manually rebuilding the package to find out there's an option to enable the testsuite. Right now, it's hidden somewhere in the .spec file and easily overlooked. > > Is the rename of the import libraries from .a to .dll.a really necessary? > > AFAIK, this is only needed for libtool based libraries (which tcl isn't) > > I don't think the renaming is strictly necessary. I did it to make it extra > clear that the .a files are implibs, not static libraries... Have you tried compiling TCL-based applications (or other libraries) against this package to test whether the compiler can find the .dll.a file? (Normally libtool takes care of that, but as TCL isn't libtool based it's best to verify this) -- 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