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=513896 --- Comment #5 from Eric Sandeen <esandeen@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-07-31 11:52:06 EDT --- Ok a few more comments, sorry for being iterative. Naming the spec "pcp_fedora.spec" threw me off, not sure if it's kosher or not. Keeping a fedora spec upstream probably just makes it harder to keep things in sync; fedora cvs should be pretty capable of keeping track of the fedora pcp specfile. --- %if %{have_ibdev} %define ib_prereqs libibmad libibumad libibcommon %define ib_build_prereqs %{ib_prereqs} libibmad-devel libibumad-devel libibcommon-devel %endif %ifarch ia64 Requires: libunwind %endif I think the ib_prereqs can be completely dropped; they're all libraries, and if configured to use it (?) rpm will work that out. So I'd just drop %{_ib_prereqs} altogether. Same goes for the libunwind stuff on ia64 most likely? Or is it explicitly needed for some reason? If so I'd add a comment. --- BuildRequires: gcc-c++ libstdc++-devel procps autoconf bison flex ncurses-devel %{?ib_build_prereqs} as per: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 There's no need for gcc-c++ or libstdc++-devel (as gcc-c++ requires this) --- However, doing a clean build fails due to missing BuildReqs: checking if ExtUtils::MakeMaker is installed... no FATAL ERROR: Perl ExtUtils::MakeMaker module missing. so add: BuildRequires: perl-ExtUtils-MakeMaker --- -- 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