[Bug 461757] Review Request: libdwarf - library for producing and consuming DWARF debugging information

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

 



Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461757





--- Comment #5 from Andrew Cagney <cagney@xxxxxxxxxx>  2008-09-11 14:52:33 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Suggestions:-
> 1) you can altenatively use version as
> %define upstreamid 20080818
> Version: 0.%{upstreamid}
> This will help you in future if you switch to releases like 1.0 or 1.0.0
> otherwise you need to use always date as version.

ah, i was wondering about that; I've changed it.

> 2) You should use shared libraries scriptlet as per given here
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#Shared_libraries

doh, missed the %postun; added

> 3) you should use "install -Dp" as per given here
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Timestamps

I've added the -p

> 4) Though not mandatory but good if you use defattr as
> %defattr(-,root,root,-)
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/CreatingPackageHowTo#.25files_section

I've changed this.

> 5) Package build is failed
> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=819456
>    You should use make as
>    make %{?_smp_mflags}  CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS -I."

I've added the flags; I'm also going to check an x86-64 build (I needed to
finish reviving my fedora access).

> Why you want to include -static package? See
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries

I've removed it.

It was in case a developer needed it (I think we should start making available
profiled libraries also but that is another story :-).

(In reply to comment #4)
> I see no versioned libdwarf.so.*.*.* symlinks to libdwarf.so are created and
> not included in libdwarf rpm. Do you want to create them?
> In that case then you need to follow
> - MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1),
> then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel
> package.

For the moment no.

-- 
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.

_______________________________________________
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

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