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=790628 --- Comment #15 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec@xxxxxxxxx> 2012-02-19 08:12:38 EST --- (In reply to comment #14) > (In reply to comment #13) > > (In reply to comment #12) [cut] > Usually we package either a major version, or some post or pre release version > from some sort of code repository. I can't tell which this is. Now, from a review standpoint, what's the problem? Besides that this is unusual? The build procedure has certain requirements, and I have solved it this way. If this is wrong, please explain why. > > > Unless you are packaging direct from version control, and if so, should state > > > why, and the Release: would need work to fit with one of Fedora's pre/post > > > release naming schemes, see: > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Post-Release_packages > > What's wrong with "Release: 3%{?dist}" ? > If you are using the upstream zip/archive then it's fine, and just include the > sf.net download using the method in the guidelines. > > If this is a source checkout from some code repository, the guidelines show how > to specify that type of checkout (eg date, cvs/svn/git version/checksum). This > comes from rpm being a build from source system, where anyone should be able > build the identical binary based on the information in the spec. Hence we would > need to know the upstream checkout version to start with... There are possibly > some exceptions to this. Have you actually packed up and looked into the source? It might help. Anyway, maybe we should wait until some of the grown-ups could advice on the possible problems here. > > > 7. Static libs: see: > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries > > Is this applicable?! I'm not packaging a static library, I'm building a static > > library which is converted to a dynamic in the following steps. Or am I > > missing something? > > You might have to query someone ith more knowledge in this area, but it seems > that you are bundling a different version of boost, and then linking to that, > rather than to the distribution's boost version ? I'm not bundling boost. What I do is to build a static library against a private boost copy in build time. As a last step I relink this against system boost libraries. The private copy of boost is not installed. So, I don't really don't know what to ask about. That I'm not bundling is easily confirmed looking at %files. > > Once again, solved what?! > Fedora packages avoid bundling libraries that are already in the distro, and so > you would need to get specific permission/allowance to bundle it. I might be > totally off base - perhaps another opinion would be good. Basically, I think you are if you think I'm bundling boost. I'm not. > The build process would also normally be required to be built either from > packages already in Fedora, or from source, although a few packages have > explicit exceptions (eg java from memory). tools/bjam is built from sources in the first bootstrap step of the build. It's not part of the source. > Overall, I probably can't provide much more guidance, someone with more > experience in these areas would be helpful. Thanks for your help! -- 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