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=464424 --- Comment #33 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx> 2008-10-03 19:27:14 EDT --- (In reply to comment #32) > gromacs-filenames.patch looks like an autotools update for the whole GROMACS. > I can't find what it really does among the hundereds of similar changes. > Please limit the patch to renaming the problematic binaries only. Yes, but I really don't want to mess with machine generated makefiles to fix the file names, since I would probably have to do it all over again in the next release of Gromacs. I changed the spec to use autoreconf again and tested it against rawhide - works flawlessly. The new patch works on only the Makefile.am files. > Also I think more binaries should get the g_ prefix, but I'll look through the > list tomorrow. I thought about renaming the lot of them, but came to the conclusion that could disturb the users too much if they're used to the normal commands. Of course, there is the option to rename everything to start with g_ and provide an additional symlink package to make it possible to use the same commands to run GROMACS as elsewhere. Or yet another: put everything in %{_libexecdir}/%{name} and implement a module. This would mean we could drop the renaming altogether! What do you think? -- 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