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=475410 --- Comment #10 from Conrad Meyer <konrad@xxxxxxxxxx> 2008-12-16 19:21:29 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8) > Wasn't -DFAST in your original .spec file? Anyway, there are some macros that > expand to error-checking code unless you specify -DFAST, in which case they > expand to nothing. So it's your call, really: do you want error-checking code > compiled in, or do you want to live dangerously but have the code run faster? Nope, -DFFTRUE was in my original. I guess Sage is ok with -DFAST, so it's fine for me. > As for the warnings, you're absolutely right. Some of the printf format > warnings look like they indicate incorrect printing problems on 64-bit > platforms. Kevin may get to making some patches if he has time, or may prod me into it :). > The dynamic + static library approach looks good. Great. > Sorry I didn't finish the review yesterday like I said I would. I had a > complete network failure before your new SRPM finished downloading, possibly > due to a winter storm that just went through here. The network's back up at > last, and I have the SRPM, so *now* I will do the full review. It's fine! Bummer that your network went down. Any chance you're in Washington? (We just had a storm.) (I'll reply to anything in the review as needed in my next comment.) -- 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