Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: zlib https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226671 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus@xxxxxxx 2007-02-19 18:22 EST ------- (In reply to comment #5) > > * Is Prefix: %{_prefix} needed? > I prefer to leave prefix flag set there. Why? It is allready set to that exact value? > > and in %install there could be a comment saying > > # the first make triggers compilation of the object files, linking of the > > # shared library and installs the library > > # The second make triggers the linking of the static library and > > # its installation > this comment is not necessary I disagree. Doing the build in %install is messy and deserves a comment. You should try to do your best such that anybody looking at your spec can understand immediately what you are doing. Doing comments for non standard build procedures is important. > These documents are not part of upstream tarball Why is it an issue? A description of the API is missing, th > > * It seems to me that there should be a make clean between the 2 > > make -f invocations, to trigger recompilation with the flags without -fPIC > > * I'll attach a patch to simplify the build and install, and use more > > macros. > fixed Not completely. I still see some issues with the spec file: * executables are compiled as part of %install and not %build * man pages are not installed in %{_mandir}, libs are not in %{_libdir}, headers are not in %{_includedir} * files compiled with shared libs flags (-fPIC) are used for static libraries. -- 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