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=731191 --- Comment #5 from Richard Shaw <hobbes1069@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-08-17 09:12:15 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) > 1. MUST: build doesn't use $RPM_OPT_FLAGS. maybe use something like: > --- configure.opt 2011-08-17 07:47:12.275486930 -0500 > +++ configure 2011-08-17 07:52:24.599256027 -0500 > @@ -74,7 +74,7 @@ > fi > > if [ "$OPT" = 'yes' ]; then > - echo 'opt = -O3' >>Makefile > + echo 'opt = -O3 $(RPM_OPT_FLAGS)' >>Makefile > fi > > if [ "$X11" = 'yes' ]; then I'll get this updated and see if a patch wouldn't be better then a bunch of sed hacks. I usually just sed update "CFLAGS =" to "CFLAGS +=" > 2. MUST. static library build/packaged. Please provide > justification/rationale for doing so, or remove it. Yeah, I was wondering about that. I only packaged it because it built it. I guess I just need to "rm -f" it so I don't get an "installed but unpackaged" error > 3. SHOULD. In %files, be explicit about what soname to package, so future abi > bumps don't come as a surprise, use something like > %files > %{_libdir}/libspnav.so.0* > instead? OK > 4. SHOULD. Given all the configure/makefile hacks (optflags, DESTDIR, lib64) > in the .spec, I'm wondering if it may be more worthwhile to make an > upstreamable patch instead? I can help do that, if that's agreeable with you. I'll ask but these makefiles are VERY simple and the packages have not been updated recently so I wonder how active upstream is. I'll post a new spec and SRPM shortly. -- 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