[Bug 1418157] Review Request: hypatia - A pure-C math library for 2D/ 3D graphics (matrix, vector, quaternion)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418157



--- Comment #3 from Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael@xxxxxxx> ---
> After I make the revisions, shall I bump the version number
> in the .spec file or the release number or bump nothing?  

Bumping plus a %changelog entry is preferred and good practice, too:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FrequentlyMadePackagingMistakes


> Is it preferred that there be a new .spec file or shall I replace
> the original .spec file with my revisions from your review?

As you would want to include valid "Spec URL:" and "SRPM URL:" links in your
review request, you may replace the older spec file at its original upload
location, but a new "SRPM URL:" pointer will be needed in a bugzilla comment.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process

The fedora-review tool looks for both the "Spec URL:" and "SRPM URL:" lines,
btw, so you could point it at this ticket and let it perform many helpful
checks.


> How about this:
> 
> C library for 2D/3D graphics (matrix, vector, quaternion)

Good, too. In my opinion.


> It is hard to say precisely what a user of the library would like to use.
> I've defaulted it to double precision floats in the package in the
> assumption hat its favorable over the single precision floats. In my own
> work, however, I prefer the single precision floats. What is your advice?

That's a strange question. You are the author of the library. You prefer
floats, but you assume that library users would prefer doubles. Are there known
library API users? If so, ask them? Else offer what you consider the better,
superior default. If that's too limiting, it may be necessary to offer the lib
as two shared libs, and API users would need to include a specific header and
link a specific lib, too.


> While I refer to the library as 'Hypatia', as I'm making the
> corrections that you suggested, I noticed that the doc and license
> folder for other libraries have the lib prefix.  Is it more correct
> to cause the .spec file to label the various directories (doc,
> license, etc) as 'libhypatia' instead of 'hypatia'?

Where the %doc and %license macros store their files depends on %name.

Fedora's package names are supposed to stay close to the upstream name. If your
upstream name is "Hypatia" or "hypatia", there is no naming guideline to add a
"lib" prefix at Fedora. Some other dists do that, but not Fedora. There are
enough library package names that don't start with a "lib" prefix.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Naming
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Naming?rd=Packaging:NamingGuidelines#General_Naming

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]