Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xtide - Calculate tide all over the world https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211626 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2006-10-21 10:52 EST ------- Well, before fixing this... (In reply to comment #6) > It seems to me that it should be (with 0 instead of 1) > %define libtcd_rel 0.%{fedora_rel} > %define tcdutils_rel 0.%{fedora_rel}.date%{tcdutils_date2} Well, I have been troubled with versioning. Usually your proposition is appropriate. However, "0." means (in fedora) "this is a pre or beta version" and * by libtcd.html, xtide src includes the "formal" (what I mean is not pre) 2.1.3 version. * for tcdutils, this is actually not pre version. > For libtcd > instead of > export CC="gcc `rpm --eval %%optflags` -DCOMPAT114" > there should be something along > %{__make} %{?_smp_mflags} \ > OPTFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS -DCOMPAT114" \ > ...... > > For xtide > -L/usr/lib shouldn't be there, it is allready on the linker path. > (and anyway it should be -L%{_libdir}) > -L./libtcd is certainly unneeded in extracxxflags > > `rpm --eval %%optflags` should be replaced by %{optflags}, rpm > shouldn't be called explicitely. > > The > /sbin/ldconfig $(pwd)/libtcd || : > is very dubious. In my opinion it shouldn't be there. I thought that, however, without this I get: + LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/home/tasaka1/rpmbuild/BUILD/xtide-2.9dev/libtcd + ./tcd-utils/build_tide_db harmonics-2004-06-14.tcd harmonics-2004-06-14.txt ./tcd-utils/build_tide_db: error while loading shared libraries: libtcd.so.2: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory > You should use consistently %optflags and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. Okay, I will fix. > I propose the following for tcd-utils: > %{__make} %{?_smp_mflags} \ > CXXFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS -I../libtcd -DCOMPAT114" \ > CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS -I../libtcd -DCOMPAT114" \ > LDFLAGS="-L../libtcd" > together with the modified tcd-utils-1.3.7-shared.patch I'll attach, > which adds LDFLAGS. Okay, I will check it later. > I don't see why the somajor/minor/ver should be different from 0.0.0. Umm, upstream has released libtcd version 1, which is API imcompatible with version 2. Through version 2 libctd seems API compatible. So I want to have SOMAJOR number 2 (and others similar). How do you think of soname versioning? (In reply to comment #8) > > # local user fails on writing ld.so.cache file > > /sbin/ldconfig $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir} || : > > Um, no. <snip> The original > suggestion in bug 211623 was to run ldconfig with option -n to ... Okay. I will fix this. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- In short: Well, before fixing this, will you tell me how do you think of A. libtcd and tcd-utils release numbering (0<->1) B. libtcd.so share object loading problem C. soname versioning ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review