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: compat-guile - Guile 1.6 compatibility package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221698 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-01-06 13:37 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=144975) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=144975&action=view) compat-guile-16.spec I created Well, I have not checked yet in detail if this package meets packaging guildlines. I justed looked into how this library are packaged and how rebuild of libgeda fails. Then: -------------------------------------------- %{__mv} %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/libguile.so %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/compat-libguile.so -------------------------------------------- This line is actually wrong. When compilation of a source file needs linkage for a library by "-lXXX", this means that this compilation uses "libXXX.so". So the file named "compat-"libXXX.so cannot be used. Generally, a library for legacy compatibility should be named as "libguile16.so", as you can see a example in libpng10-devel (in FC5). And.. also the use of directory named "/.../.../compat-XXX" should be avoided because there is no guarantee that only one version of compatibility-providing libraries are needed. These types of directories should be named so that their names clearly show the version, like "/usr/include/guile16" or so. Also, the name of rpm should show version explicitly like libpng10 or compat-gcc-34. I tried to create compat-guile-16.spec with my suggestions applied. --------------------------------------------- Note: I only checked compatibility and not checked the accordance for packaging guidelines. I just noticed that owning automake .m4 file means that -devel package should need "Requires: automake". -- 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