New package: fpc-2.0.0

[Jens Petersen]

Hi Joost,

Sorry for the slow follow up.

Joost van der Sluis wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-05-24 at 13:22 +0900, Jens Petersen wrote:
> 
>>It doesn't seem to build completely on x86_64, since
>>the libs are installed in /usr/lib and not /usr/lib64.
> 
> I've tried to fix that. Couldn't test it though, I don't have regular
> access to a x86_64 machine.

Thanks.  Unfortunately it still isn't fixed -
perhaps you can try to track down the problem by overriding
_libdir yourself when building for i386.

>>- "examples/" seems to be too big to include in the main package:
>>   I recommend either excluding it or at least moving it to a -doc
>>   subpackage
> 
> I removed the examples and will make a -doc subpackage. Only thing is
> that that package must contain the full fpc-sources since the examples
> are spread throughout the sources. Is that ok?

How big will that make the -doc package? :)

>>- If more html documentation available, it could also go into -doc.
>>   I see there is a -docs subpackage on the upstream download page.
> 
> The documentation can be generated as .pdf or .html. (Both has some
> problems in the 2.0.0 release, but there are patches for that)

Probably just html is sufficient for the -doc package.

>>- the software is GPL/LGPL :), but are there any legal issues with
>>   highlighting TP and Delphi compatibility?
> 
> 
> You mean problems with the 'TP and Delphi compatibility' statement? I
> won't know why.

I mean they're probably registered trademarks and so on.
Thought it was worth bringing up anyway... Anyone?

>>- (It would be nice if upstream could simplify building and installing
>>    without the setup.sh script?:)
> 
> Which script do you mean?

I mean just "configure; make; make install" rather than calling half a dozen
make targets... more of an upstream rfe I suppose though. :)

> The new spec-file and source rpm can be found here: (I also fixed Jochen
> Schhmitt's comment)
> 
> http://www.cnoc.nl/fpc/fpc.spec

Thanks.  I attach some more fixes.
Any reason not to own %{_libdir}/%{name} itself?
I think fpc should.

Jens
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: fpc.spec-0.3.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 2154 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/attachments/20050601/eed0395b/attachment.bin>