[Bug 1007577] Review Request: arprec - Software package for performing arbitrary precision arithmetic

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1007577

Björn "besser82" Esser <bjoern.esser@xxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|package-review@lists.fedora |
                   |project.org                 |



--- Comment #3 from Björn "besser82" Esser <bjoern.esser@xxxxxxxxx> ---
(In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #2)
> There are several details in the spec, I do not understand:
> 
> a) Why this:
> ...
> # the testsuite is a good example for using this lib
> cp -a tests examples
> rm -rf  examples/._*            \
>         examples/Makefile*
> ...
> 
> To make these files available as examples, before building starts cluttering
> the "tests" directory with intermediate files (*.o etc.)?

Yes, exactly. :)  Added some more verbose comment in spec.

> b) Why are you running autoreconf?
> I do not see any reason why this spec needs to run autoreconf.
> 
> The tarball seem to contain broken timestamps, but these can be overcome in
> less intrusive ways, which do not expose the sources to the risks of
> autoreconf (Autoreconf is very dangerous, esp. in cases sources contain
> fortran code).

purged

> c) What are these "._*" files to be found all over the place?
> I think, all of them are not used and probably can be removed in %prep.

These files are purged during %prep now, too.

> d) arprec-config contains arch-specific settings
> => arprec-common-devel can not be noarched
> My advise would be to implement a new arprec-config based on pkg-config
> which is call-compatible to the original arprec-config.

merged common-devel with devel pkg.

> e) IMO, the packaging is unnecessarily fine grained.
> That said, I do not see much reasons for arprec-common-devel, arprec-doc,
> arprec-tools-common and would advise against this kind of packaging.

as said above.  renamed the tools-common to %{name}-data.  But this pkg really
is noarch'ed data of ~ 72 MByte (noarch.rpm is ~30 MByte).

#####

Update:

%changelog:

  * Fri Sep 13 2013 Björn Esser <bjoern.esser@xxxxxxxxx> - 2.2.16-2
  - renamed tools-common pkg to data
  - merged common-devel pkg with devel, because it can't be noarch
  - removed calling autoreconf during %%build
  - some minor improvements in %%prep, mostly comments
  - as suggested in rhbz# 1007577 c#2

  * Thu Sep 12 2013 Björn Esser <bjoern.esser@xxxxxxxxx> - 2.2.16-1
  - Initial rpm release (#1007577)

Koji Builds:

  el5:  no el5 build for this.  autotools are too dated.
  el6:  https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5930081
  F18:  https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5930085
  F19:  https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5930088
  F20:  https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5930091
  Frh:  https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5930095


Urls:

  Spec URL: http://besser82.fedorapeople.org/review/arprec.spec
  SRPM URL:
http://besser82.fedorapeople.org/review/arprec-2.2.16-2.fc21.src.rpm

-- 
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=pLaGBOrmxB&a=cc_unsubscribe
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review





[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]