https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020088 --- Comment #8 from Thibault North <thibault.north@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #6) > Try this: > > %{!?_pkgdocdir: %global _pkgdocdir %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}} s/%{version}// ? Doesn't work here, but %global _pkgdocdir %{_docdir}/%{name} seems to make it. Thanks. (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #7) > (In reply to Thibault North from comment #5) > > > 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 ? > Are you building this under F20/F21 or F19? You get an unversioned > %_pkgdocdir only in F >= 20. F19, indeed! Thanks. > > > 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 ?) > How the binary itself is compiled probably doesn't matter so much, compared > to how the library is compiled. My bad, I had in mind the previous Makefile which was compiling directly against the blosc code. Now, it is too bad that blosc is compiled with %{?_smp_mflags}, because part of the power of blosc is provided by these SSE optimization. (checking how much would be interesting.) > > 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 ? > Maybe just install the script in %{_bindir}, just removing the extension? Yes, done. Also, blosc-plot-times requires python-matplotlib%{?_isa}. I thought that requiring it would be ok, but rpmlint complains (explicit-lib-dependency). i guess this can be ignored? http://tnorth.fedorapeople.org/rev/blosc.spec http://tnorth.fedorapeople.org/rev/blosc-1.2.3-5.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