[Bug 1761576] Review Request: zmat - A portable and easy-to-use data compression library

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

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1761576



--- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx> ---
(In reply to Qianqian Fang from comment #3)
> > - Do you really need to provide static libraries? There are usually not
> provided in Fedora.
> 
> 
> I personally like linking with static libraries because it makes the
> software more portable. So, if possible, I would like to provide the .a
> 
Read that part then:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_packaging_static_libraries

Static libraries and shared libraries. In this case, the static libraries MUST
be placed in a *-static subpackage. Separating the static libraries from the
other development files in *-devel allow us to track this usage by checking
which packages BuildRequire the *-static package. The intent is that whenever
possible, packages will move away from using these static libraries, to the
shared libraries. If the *-static subpackage requires headers or other files
from *-devel in order to be useful it MUST require the *-devel subpackage.

tl;dr: create a static subpackage for your static library

> 
> >- Use install -p to keep timestamps
> 
> Got it
> 
> 
> >- To avoid unintentional soname bump, we forbid globbing the major soname
> version, be more specific instead:
> 
> >%{_libdir}/lib%{name}.so.*
> 
> 
> Can you clarify this a little bit? Did you mean I should replace 
> lib%{name}.so with libzmat.so? Or I must name this library to something
> else? Does this also apply to the .a file as well?
> 

The major soname must not be globbed, so replace %{_libdir}/lib%{name}.so.*
with %{_libdir}/lib%{name}.so.0* 
or whatever number is the major soversion.

> Let me know, I can update the spec file.
> 
> 
> >- Probably need to delete that:
> 
> pwd
> ls easylzma-0.0.8/include/
> 
> Yes, those were for debugging purposes
> 
> 
> > - I see the GPL license file, but where does the or BSD come from?
> 
> I placed the code under dual license of gpl and bsd.

This doesn't appeas in the license file or the github repo.

-- 
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
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Conditions]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux