https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=996232 --- Comment #21 from Fabian Deutsch <fdeutsch@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #20) > * > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging: > Guidelines#Architecture_Build_Failures > > > > Name: pocl > > Requires: %{name}-libs = %{version}-%{release} > > > %package devel > > Requires: %{name}-libs = %{version}-%{release} > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package > > > > %post -p /sbin/ldconfig > > %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig > > Not needed. No shared libs in there. > > > > %files libs > > %{_libdir}/pocl/ > > > %files devel > > %{_libdir}/libpoclu.so > > %{_libdir}/libpocl.so > > %{_libdir}/pocl/llvmopencl.so > > As one can see, the llvmopencl.so library is included in both packages. In > -libs because of including the full %{_libdir}/pocl/ tree, and in -devel as > specific file. I just droppped the -libs subpackage. The main package only consistend of the standalone script and some helpers. Now the base package contains the actual libraries which actualy are pocl. > What .so file is it? Due to its private path, it smells like a plug-in > (extension module) rather than a lib needed at build-time. I assume it's > misplaced if included in the -devel package. Please investigate. ;-) This is a private library used only by pocl (and helper scripts). So pulled it into the base package. Sigh - We are so strict :) Thanks, for your comments Michael, Peter, Susi. Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/fabiand/pocl-spec/0.8-4/pocl.spec SRPM URL: http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/4674/5814674/pocl-0.8-4.fc20.src.rpm Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5814673 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=xL63tUnqfI&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review