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=497622 --- Comment #28 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx> 2009-07-24 02:47:06 EDT --- (In reply to comment #27) > Adding --with-arpack enables building of a "driver" binary that is part of the > tools folder, which is just copied to the share directory in the > install-data-local macro, so its not required for APBS. Would it be best to > set up a -tools subpackage with all the extras? (see here: > http://cardon.wustl.edu/MediaWiki/index.php/An_overview_of_the_APBS_package#Other_tools_distributed_with_APBS > for more info) And I'm also worried about having a binary just called "driver" > lying around - could that be an issue? Yes, "driver" is a no-go and must be renamed to e.g. abps-driver if packaged. If it is compiled, how is it installed in the share directory..? Actually, you'll have to rename everythin in the tools/ folder in the package. IMHO they should be packaged, since they are included in the abps distribution. > Adding --enable-python doesn't do anything other than build ZSI (which it > shouldn't do) - which I realized, python-ZSI should be a requires so > ApbsClient.py runs properly. That's odd. After all http://cardon.wustl.edu/MediaWiki/index.php/An_overview_of_the_APBS_package#Python_development_tools -- 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