[Bug 165265] Review Request: libnjb

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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: libnjb


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=165265





------- Additional Comments From triad at df.lth.se  2005-08-09 14:54 EST -------
Thanks Michael, excellent feedback, as always.

Most things just fixed, a -5 release of the package is now available on the
same URL.  A few notes:

Dropped all conditionals: if a generic .spec file is to be done, one
shall do it in some other macro language and generate a Fedora .spec from it,
I conclude. (Will enter into the Wiki someday.)

I need some clear definition of what it means that a package is relocatable:
this library is not bound to /usr at compile time: autoconf:s "configure"
script process the pkgconfig.pc.in file to create a pkgconfig.pc file
in accordance with the --prefix given from RPM by way of the %configure
macro. Does this not mean that the package is relocateble? I was sort of
wondering if "relocatable" is to be understood as "relocatable after
packaging" not "relocatable at packaging time". I have successfully 
compiled and used this library with "configure --prefix=$HOME" for
example so it is indeed relocatable at compile time as far as I know
(and if there still is some issue, I can fix it) as far as you set the
apropriate search paths for libraries and pkgconfig. For example it can
be relocated to /opt/lib without any problems, many users have done this.

I fixed the hotplug dir owning issue by introducing a dependency on hotplug,
also noticed that the pkgconfig dirs used are better off as a 
Requires: pkgconfig line.

The .la files are mystically called static libs in the package review
guidelines, that's why that comment was so strange ( - MUST: Packages 
must NOT contain any .la static libraries, these should be removed in 
the spec.) I had no idea that extension signified a libtool archive,
just a vague idea of what it was. Good that I know now.

Weird with %{_docdir}: Tom Calloway wrote:

> In fact, everything that rpm is capable of defining as:
> 
> Foo:            bar
> 
> Will then exist as %{foo}.

But! %{docdir} is NOT defined, instead we have to use %{_docdir} which
is defined in the same magical fashion... Something is weird here and 
not quite logical. I set:

Docdir:    %{_defaultdocdir}

and use %{_docdir} in subsequent statements and hope for the best.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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.