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: seom - Desktop video capture and playback utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227309 ------- Additional Comments From jwilson@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-02-08 16:49 EST ------- (In reply to comment #14) > will do ... I'll drop you an email as soon as a new tarball is available. Excellent, thank you. > > For Fedora packages, libtool archives and static libs are forbidden, so it was > > solely for the benefit of the package. I'll use a patch that doesn't nuke that, > > and will instead remove the file from within the spec. > > I would actually love to drop libtool, but it's a nice tool that adds '-fPIC' > when needed (and other arch-dependent flags). But other than that, I find it > horrible (what are these libtool archives for anyway? The compiler doesn't need > them when linking against the library, right?). I must admit to knowing very little about libtool or ways to replace it... > > Other notes on the patch I'm using: > > - splitting CFLAGS and EXTRA_CFLAGS makes packaging much easier. Fedora has a > > standard set of CFLAGS that are supposed to be used on all packages, so > > splitting off the -std=c99 bit into EXTRA_CFLAGS makes life easier, since its > > required, but not part of the standard Fedora CFLAGS. > > What about 'CFLAGS += ...' in the Makefile and a configure option --cflags, > would that work for you? I think a CFLAGS += might work, but the preferred way to get our CFLAGS into a build is via an export, preferrably the one done by the %configure macro (which also passes in libdir, bindir, sbindir, etc. info, which is part of why I was dropping the additional *DIR bits into the Makefile). > > - some of the added $(*DIR) bits are for convenience more than anything, but are > > fairly standard. > > One thing that still bothers be is my use of LIBDIR. I know it's non-standard, > but I find it much more convenient when cross-compiling, because I only have to > set LIBDIR='lib' or 'lib32' and not LIBDIR='$PREFIX/lib'. I also don't really > see a use in installing the libs, apps and headers each into a different prefix. Nah, we'd never install those bits in different prefixes either. This again goes back to the %configure macro, which passes in a full path for LIBDIR. We never touch LIB though, so I added that to add support for doing essentially what you're doing w/LIBDIR at the moment. I could be missing something, but I though that change would still allow you to build and install as you have been by passing LIB='lib' or 'lib32'. > I'm hard to convince, I admit, but my decisions are rarely set in stone, so I'm > sure if you give me strong, good reasons I may change my use of LIBDIR ;) Hope the above helped... :) > > - you've got lots of extraneous slashes -- $(DESTDIR)/$(PREFIX) works out to > > /somewhere//usr -- so I nuke all those. > > Yeah, I noticed that, too, but i don't care because it's just a cosmetic change, > or isn't it? Mostly cosmetic, but also the right thing to do. :) (In reply to comment #15) > Just a question: > > Should I wait this review until a new tarball is released? Might as well. -- 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