https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264686 --- Comment #2 from Marco Driusso <marcodriusso@xxxxxxxxx> --- Hi Antonio, thanks for your comments. I hope you don't mind some questions before the updated spec and SRPM. > ##libitpp > - The ITPP libraries are compiled and named as 'libitpp'; using this name > for your package is the best choice. Ok, that was a doubt I had in writing the spec. IT++ was formerly called itpp in Fedora, but in other distributions (Ubuntu, Arch, openSUSE) it is called libitpp, so let's go for libitpp, which make more sense also to me. > - All documentation files are easily packaged by using '%doc'. I did not used %doc because "use of %doc with relative paths and installation of files directly into %_pkgdocdir in the same source package is forbidden" (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Documentation). Indeed, using %doc under the %files section caused the automatic inclusion of %{_pkgdocdir} in the main packet, resulting in html documentation both in itpp and itpp-doc. So, what is the common practice in this case? > ##libitpp-devel > - These BuildRequires calls are already listed for the main package. > Redundant here: > Requires: fftw-devel > Requires: blas-devel > Requires: lapack-devel These were not intended to be BuildRequires, but actual Requires for itpp-devel, since IT++ headers include headers from fftw, blas, and lapack. But maybe I'm missing something. > ##libitpp-doc > - Use the RPM built-in macro: > /usr/bin/itpp-config is %{_bindir}/itpp-config > and you don't need to set its permission explicitely. Here I explicitly set the permission because itpp-config comes out from %build with permissions 555, and rpmlint complains. Do you think I have to fix this in a previous phase, e.g. as a patch? > Also, you're packaging extra files in /usr/share/itpp for Octave and Python > i think. I don't know if they are still under development > (http://sourceforge.net/p/itpp/git/ci/master/tree/extras/) and if their > packaging is useful. I think their packaging is useful because they are (python and octave) scripts for loading and saving variables (from python and octave) using the binary file format of IT++. Apart from that, many thanks again for the comments, and I will update the spec very soon. -- 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