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: <ppl-0.9> - <A modern C++ library providing numerical abstractions> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227669 ------- Additional Comments From bagnara@xxxxxxxxxxx 2007-02-18 06:34 EST ------- Hi there, in one week we have made considerable progress. Now, with the source rpm http://www.cs.unipr.it/ppl/Download/ftp/releases/0.9/RedHat/FC6/ppl-0.9-2.src.rpm which comes from http://www.cs.unipr.it/ppl/Download/ftp/releases/0.9/RedHat/FC6/ppl.spec http://www.cs.unipr.it/ppl/Download/ftp/releases/0.9/ppl-0.9.tar.gz http://www.cs.unipr.it/ppl/Download/ftp/releases/0.9/RedHat/FC6/ppl-0.9-docfiles.patch I obtain the following: $ rpmlint -i /home/roberto/rpm/SRPMS/ppl-0.9-2.src.rpm $ rpmlint -i /home/roberto/rpm/RPMS/x86_64/ppl*.rpm W: ppl-gprolog-devel no-dependency-on ppl-gprolog W: ppl-swiprolog-devel no-dependency-on ppl-swiprolog W: ppl-yap-devel no-dependency-on ppl-yap I don't know if the three residual warnings are acceptable. The point is that the C/C++ model appears to be different from the one used in Prolog. Before I changed the names of the packages from `*' to `*-devel' I had lots of warnings concerning text files and static libraries in non-devel packages, but that files need to be there in order for the interfaces to be generally usable. Having both a non-devel and a devel package for these interfaces does not make sense from the user point of view. To summarize: - To make rpmlint happy it seems one should have both `*' to `*-devel', but then what to put in each of those? They should both installed to end up with something usable. - If we can afford living with an unhappy rpmlint, then should we name the packages `*' or `*-devel'? Coming back to the C/C++ world, there is the issue of where to put the static libraries. They are now in the ppl-devel package and ppl-pwl-devel packages. Should I move them to ppl-devel-static and ppl-pwl-devel-static or to ppl-static and ppl-pwl-static ? This would bring us to have 11 packages for PPL 0.9 and at least 13 for PPL 0.10. Many thanks again, Roberto -- 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