https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203749 --- Comment #12 from Dave Love <d.love@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- I could have sworn I'd responded to this, but obviously didn't press save or something. Anyhow: I'm not sure who I should be responding to, and why half this stuff matters when it's not in any guidelines and differs in other packages. > > > > I don't understand why BOOST_{INC,LIB}_DIR, DEBUG, and INSTALL need setting. > > Boost must be set in Make.config file; better if set manually in the SPEC file > in case of changes in future. > Debugging is considered by Make but **explicitly** not required during building > process. Boost clearly doesn't need to be set there; it builds fine and it seems wrong explicitly to set the default paths -- what's special about boost, and why don't other packages need to do that? Sorry, I just don't understand the comment about DEBUG. > %build > ... > echo "LDOPTS=%{__global_ldflags}" >>make.config > make %{?_smp_mflags} __global_ldflags isn't defined in EPEL6, and it's not clear to me that the flags are generally a good idea for computational programs, but I added it conditionally. > Since the package contains just one binary, please use > > %{_bindir}/mkdssp > > instead of > > %_bindir/* Why? I've not seen that in any guidelines, and it doesn't seem to achieve anything useful, but I did it. It's wanted on our el5 system, and the spec now supports that. New SRPM URL: https://loveshack.fedorapeople.org/review/dssp-2.2.1-5.el5.src.rpm Spec URL: https://loveshack.fedorapeople.org/review/dssp.spec -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review