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=606498 --- Comment #6 from Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-07-09 13:46:01 EDT --- For -18: Well, now after removing RHEL4 specific stuff, the spec file is much easier to read, thank you. * Timestamp (In reply to comment #5) > > * Timestamp > > - When using cp or install command, also add "-p" option to keep timestamps > > on installed files: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Timestamps > > I have -p already in the spec file: > %{__make} install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} INSTALL="%{__install} -p" > Is anything wrong with the line above? - I am mentioning about the following lines (INSTALL="%{__install} -p" is correct) ------------------------------------------------------------- 61 %{__cp} AUTHORS COPYING NEWS README VERSION %{buildroot}%{_defaultdocdir}/%{name}-%{version} 62 %{__cp} doc/hwloc-hello.c %{buildroot}%{_defaultdocdir}/%{name}-%{version} ------------------------------------------------------------- Please use %{__cp} -p ! rpath > > * Rpath handling > > - So are you going to remove by this way instead of the following one? > > (Note: not a blocker) > > http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/2010-June/007187.html > > I have tried to use the solution proposed in the mailing thread above. However, > there are some issues: > > 1) I'm not sure if I can do it for all archs - should I add conditional to do > it only on x86_64? To be honest I don't know about ARM, MIPS, Parisc - are > libraries on these archs stored at /usr/lib64 ?? > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures > Therefore I would prefer to have a solution common for all archs. - I am interested only in what is supported on Fedora. > 2) rpmlint --verbose --info SPECS/hwloc.spec > SPECS/hwloc.spec:42: E: hardcoded-library-path in /lib > > It's complaining about this line: > %{__sed} -i.libdir_syssearch -e '/sys_lib_dlsearch_path_spec/s|/usr/lib > |/usr/lib /usr/lib64 /lib /lib64|' configure > > Because of these issues I have stuck with solutions proposed at > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/RPath_Packaging_Draft - Well, we must always investigate if rpmlint warnings or errors can be ignored or not on each specific package. There are also some other cases in which we ignore rpmlint warnings or errors. However this is not a blocker. Other things * Arch-specific header files in /usr/include --------------------------------------------------------------------- diff -ur Binary/hwloc-devel-1.0.1-18.fc14.i686/usr/include/hwloc/config.h x86_64/hwloc-devel-1.0.1-18.fc14.x86_64/usr/include/hwloc/config.h --- Binary/hwloc-devel-1.0.1-18.fc14.i686/usr/include/hwloc/config.h 2010-07-10 00:41:44.000000000 +0900 +++ x86_64/hwloc-devel-1.0.1-18.fc14.x86_64/usr/include/hwloc/config.h 2010-07-10 00:41:45.000000000 +0900 @@ -99,7 +99,7 @@ #define HWLOC_NBMAXCPUS 1024 /* The size of `unsigned long', as computed by sizeof */ -#define HWLOC_SIZEOF_UNSIGNED_LONG 4 +#define HWLOC_SIZEOF_UNSIGNED_LONG 8 /* The size of `unsigned int', as computed by sizeof */ #define HWLOC_SIZEOF_UNSIGNED_INT 4 --------------------------------------------------------------------- - Installed hwloc/config.h differs between i686 vs x86_64, and this breaks multilib installation. This is (perhaps) not a blocker, however it is highly preferred that -devel package supports multilib installation. ! You can use what python-devel handles this issue. python-devel has "/usr/include/python2.6/pyconfig.h", which says: --------------------------------------------------------------------- #include <bits/wordsize.h> #if __WORDSIZE == 32 #include "pyconfig-32.h" #elif __WORDSIZE == 64 #include "pyconfig-64.h" #else #error "Unknown word size" #endif --------------------------------------------------------------------- and python-devel renames the "original pyconfig.h" to pyconfig-{32,64}.h. -- 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