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: HippoDraw - Interactive and Python scriptable data analysis application https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208034 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-03-12 04:08 EST ------- Well, as I said my comment -------------------------------------- qt-devel is needed for HippoDraw-devel -------------------------------------- is a just a example. Would you check all dependency for -devel package again? And. I have a question. Well, /usr/include/HippoDraw/numarray/num_util.h contains: -------------------------------------- 10 // $Id: num_util.h,v 1.11 2007/02/13 19:15:14 pfkeb Exp $ 11 // 12 13 #ifdef HAVE_CONFIG_H 14 #include "config.h" 15 #endif 16 17 #include <boost/python.hpp> 18 #ifdef HAVE_NUMPY 19 #include <numpy/noprefix.h> 20 #else 21 #ifdef HAVE_NUMERIC 22 #include <Numeric/arrayobject.h> 23 #else 24 #include <numarray/arrayobject.h> 25 typedef int intp; 26 #endif 27 #endif 28 -------------------------------------- (well, the line 17 implies that HippoDraw-devel needs "Requires: boost-devel") Here the files included by this file differs according to what is "define"d, however, how can I know if HAVE_NUMPY or so should be defined when using this header file? Well, at the stage of compiling HippoDraw, it was determined whether HAVE_NUMPY or so was defined or not because "config.h" is included. Perhaps when I use this header file, it should be consistent with the stage of compiling HippoDraw about whether I should define HAVE_NUMPY or not, isn't it? Or can this be ignored? -- 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