https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369708 --- Comment #16 from yunying.sun@xxxxxxxxx --- (In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #13) > (In reply to yunying.sun from comment #12) > > Could you help to review again? > > Here we go: > > - Please append --disable-silent-rules to %configure > This enforces verbose building, because silent building is not helpful when > building packages in batches. > > - Please disable-static libs. > Static libs are strongly discouraged in Fedora. > > To achieve this, append --disable-static to %configure > and remove %{_libdir}/*.a from %files > @Ralf, after disabling static library build, the other package tpm2-tools local rpm build fails due to not finding SAPI. Reason is that it depens on libsapi.a & libtcti-*.a which ought to be generated from tpm2-tss build. What is the right way to solve this issue? On wiki: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries, one solution is put static libs into a *-static subpackage, and use "BuildRequires: *-static" for packages which links to this static subpackage. Is this the right way to go? > - Please add LICENSE to %license in %files: > %files > ... > %license LICENSE > > - Consider to add README.md and ChangeLog to %doc > %files > ... > %doc README.md ChangeLog > > - *-devel should > Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} > not > Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} > > - Directories %{_includedir}/sapi and %{_includedir}/tcti should be owned. > Please change > %{_includedir}/sapi/*.h > %{_includedir}/tcti/*.h > into > %{_includedir}/sapi > %{_includedir}/tcti > > > I am going to attach a patch proposal comprising all changes up to here to > this BZ. > > > > > - IMHO, the CFLAGS in upstream's *.pc.ins are bogus. > They all contain > Cflags: -I@includedir@/<subpkg> > while I think they should contain > Cflags: -I@includedir@ > > What actually is correct, depends upon which form of #include statements > upstream expects consumers/users of these libs to use: > If they are expected to use "#include <someheader.h>" > then the 1st form would be correct. > If they are expected to use "#include <subpkg/someheader.h>" > then the 2nd form would be correct. > > In general, the 2nd form is better, because the 1st form is more likely to > erroniously pickup bogus headers from the compiler's include path. > > > Finally, one general (upstream-related) question: > On which architectures/target-platform is this package useful on/applicable > to? > I guess, it's probably x86_64 + i686 only (or x86_64 only?), but not on > others (arm, sparc, s3**, ppc, ...). -- 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx