Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: odpdom - Oversized Document Parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=445980 ------- Additional Comments From rpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2008-05-19 14:26 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1) > If you're going to use the macro forms of commands line %{__make}, you should > use %{__rm} as well. Also, if you prefer %{buildroot} over $RPM_BUILD_ROOT, > you should use %{optflags} instead of $RPM_OPT_FLAGS. Just try to be > consistent in your usage of macro forms. > > I note you're not using the dist tag. I guess you maintain enough packages > that you can handle the version juggling required when you don't use the dist > tag. I will add the dist tag (omitted by accident) and make macro usage consistent. (In reply to comment #2) > Well, as far as I checked this package > - the original tarball does not provide any shared libraries, only > static archives are provided > - odpdom-p4v.patch is applied to provide a shared library for Fedora Actually that's odpdom-rpm.patch that does that. The -p4v patch comes from p4vasp, which includes a modified odpdom. So in order to build p4vasp against shared odpdom, I decided to patch odpdom in the same way, because p4vasp seems to call that method. (In reply to comment #5) > Well, it certainly doesn't hurt to discuss things with the upstream > developers. > Rathann, do you know their opinions on the topic? Not yet, but I will contact them. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review