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=559856 --- Comment #2 from Eric Smith <eric@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-01-29 05:40:54 EST --- > you can safely drop the SOlib definitions. OK > Does the library *really* have hard-coded paths in the source code? If not, > then you can drop libdir=%{_libdir} usrlibdir=%{_libdir} exec_prefix=/usr" from > the make command. Can't drop them. The make uses sed to substitute the directory paths into the .pc file. > Use %{_prefix} instead of /usr. OK > You should own the directory %{_includedir}/bsd/. OK > The devel package should Requires: pkgconfig, if you are going to build for EPEL, modern Fedoras pick up the requirement automatically. OK > If you remove nlist.h, then you should require the package that provides it. > Are the files really compatible? This one is tricky. The functionality of nlist in libbsd is intended to be identical to that in elfutils-libelf. To at least a superficial examination, the header seems functionally identical. However, I'm not 100% certain that the libbsd implementation is suitable for Fedora Linux. Anyone that depends on nlist should use the one from elfutils-libelf. Since libbsd is just a collection of random BSD stuff, it seems likely that the vast majority of libbsd users won't use nlist. I don't think omitting nlist makes it appropriate to have the package depend on elfutils-libelf. Adding that dependency will not solve the problem even for a libbsd user that does want nlist, since they would need to add a the elfutils-libelf to their link anyhow. The other reason that I don't think omitting nlist from libbsd is going to be a serious problem for anyone is that the only purpose of libbsd is to support porting programs from BSD, and anyone doing that will have to change the #include directives in the program being ported. What's more of a concern is that if someone does link to both libbsd and elfutils-libelf, they may get the wrong nlist implementation depending on the link order. I think it's best to change the libbsd makefile to not compile or link nlist, as well as omitting the header. Unless someone has a serious objection, I'm going to do that tomorrow and make a new spec and SRPM available for review. -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review