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=673839 --- Comment #12 from Robert Scheck <redhat-bugzilla@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2011-02-12 21:01:27 EST --- http://sodium.resophonic.com/boost-cmake/1.41.0.cmake0/ is at RHEL and older Fedora versions used, because boost itself only ships bjam (and no makefiles!). But bjam is somehow disliked by Fedora/Red Hat people. And the idea to provide just a patch-set containing the makefiles for cmake rather a whole tarball is newer IIRC (that's how it is handled nowadays at Fedora). I found the same tarball at the following two URLs, but I'm in doubt, whether they are more permanent than the current one. Shall I add them as comment in the spec file when updating it? - http://shr.bearstech.com/shr-unstable/sources/Boost/boost/ - http://www.openpandora.org/firmware/sources/ Non-library files in %{_libdir} are required, because they're arch-specific; this is IIRC solved the same way in Fedora at newer boost versions, too. The macros in comments are IMHO rpmlint nonsense, escaping doesn't make things more readable or really much better. Warning regarding boost141-math seems irrelevant, as it is a meta-package only. Warning regarding shared-lib-calls-exit seems acceptable to me, as it seems to be called only in non-standard situation. Regarding licensing: Current Boost package in Fedora has same license tag. If you think, this should be verified, let's set FE_LEGAL and put Tom on Cc. -- 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