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=545046 --- Comment #6 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx> 2009-12-09 05:47:51 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > - The Summary, Group and Requires fields of the subpackages are still not > > tabbed correctly. > > It's not clear for me. > Does the latest spec file refrain what you mean? Perfect. > > - You don't have to ship the static library at all - you can just remove it at > > the end of %install. > > This package may be used by scientific programmer which have the computer with > huge memory area. > > They sometimes link libraries as static for the "performance" with their own > risk. Other scientific libraries such as blas/lapack or fftw also have static > libraries in their package. So I suppose there is no problem that I pack > static libraries as a separate subpackage. Uhm, I don't think the overhead of dynamic linkage is THAT great. Dynamic memory allocation, on the other hand, is slow. Static linking is most helpful a) on systems that don't support dynamic linking and b) if you want to run the same binary on a lot of different systems without having to recompile it. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries "Packages including libraries should exclude static libs as far as possible (eg by configuring with --disable-static). Static libraries should only be included in exceptional circumstances. Applications linking against libraries should as far as possible link against shared libraries not static versions." If you *really* think having the static library is necessary, then it's OK to ship it. I wouldn't, though. ** An aesthetical comment: you don't need to put so much empty lines within sections in the spec file. A few lines between sections (such as %build and %install) is enough, when there's nothing long and complicated happening. %post and %postun are also usually grouped together for symmetry. ** I am willing to sponsor you if you show me your knowing of the Fedora guidelines, most importantly http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines Additionally to the Packaging Guidelines, there are a bunch of language / application specific guidelines that are linked to in the Packaging Guidelines. Here are some tricks of the trade: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_tricks http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues I will sponsor you if you have at least one other submission and perform a couple of informal reviews of packages of other people. Please review only packages *not* marked with FE-NEEDSPONSOR. I will have to do the full formal review after you to check that you have got everything correctly. Once I have sponsored you you will be able to do formal reviews of your own. -- 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