https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020088 --- Comment #5 from Thibault North <thibault.north@xxxxxxxxx> --- > BTW, the proper way to refer to %{docdir}/%{name} is through %{_pkgdocdir}. Yes, but it looks like %{_pkgdocdir} still points to %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version} even after %global _docdir_fmt %{name}. Or I am doing something wrong here, I don't know ? > But I think that a different solution is actually better: > c) simply install a compiled version of 'bench'. > > I think this is better because as a user, I don't want to have to find out > how to compile the .c file to run the benchmarks, I would prefer to be able > to invoke it directly. I have now run bench myself, and I think it would be > worthwhile to package, because the results are quite interesting, and > relevant to how one would use blosc. This makes sense. Moreover, the -O2 flag will match the actual blosc library from the package. On the other hand, the optimization brought by -O3 as well as SSE are lost with this packaged blosc binary, right? (doesn't that somehow defeat the purpose of blosc ?) > There's a problem that making the bench binary and the associated > plot-times.py script part of either of the two binary packages is > problematic. If it is moved into the main package, it would start requiring > python, and x86_64 versions would nod be co-installable. If is is installed > as part of the -devel package, again, -devel would require python, and also > not be coinstallable. I think that adding a -bench (or -test) package is the > best option, with > /usr/bin/blosc-bench and /usr/bin/blosc-plot-times. Good idea. I tried to implement it in the new spec, which is probably not perfect. The blosc-plot-times is a link pointing to the actual python file in %doc. I guess this one should be in %{_datadir} instead ? I still had to use %exclude to avoid duplicates. Using %doc bench, for some reason, also adds *.rst. > So, whatever you decide wrt. the %files problem, please post a new .spec. As > a reviewer, I don't think I should impose my view here, and you should pick > whatever you think best from the maintainer point of view. New spec online: http://tnorth.fedorapeople.org/rev/blosc.spec http://tnorth.fedorapeople.org/rev/blosc-1.2.3-4.fc19.src.rpm (Is it ok to overwrite this SPEC file everytime? Old ones are still available in the SRPMS packages at http://tnorth.fedorapeople.org/rev/blosc-1.2.3-?.fc19.src.rpm) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review