Looking for a review of 'sundials' library
john at curioussymbols.com
Mon Jul 30 04:07:21 UTC 2007
Debarshi 'Rishi' Ray wrote:
>>> 2. Why are you invoking ./configure directly instead of using
>>> '%configure' in the '%build' stanza?
>> OK, fixed (reason was related to the following, but %configure is still
>> OK, so I use it now)
> Some of the flags that you are passing manually are automatically
> taken care of by the %configure macro. You could remove the
> unnecessary ones and use the rpmbuild defaults.
Not true AFAICT (looking at Fedora Core 5 when I say this). Don't have
access to a more recent machine for testing at this point (I can correct
these things once I get CVS access for this package).
Here is what I get on FC5:
+ ./configure --host=i686-redhat-linux-gnu --build=i686-redhat-linux-gnu
--target=i386-redhat-linux --program-prefix= --prefix=/usr
--exec-prefix=/usr --bindir=/usr/bin --sbindir=/usr/sbin
--sysconfdir=/etc --datadir=/usr/share --includedir=/usr/include
--libdir=/usr/lib --libexecdir=/usr/libexec --localstatedir=/var
--infodir=/usr/share/info CXX=g++ CC=gcc F77=gfortran --enable-static=no
>> I have uploaded the updated files to the *NEW* location (don't have my
>> fedorapeople key here) of:
> It would be better if you briefly mentioned what you actually fixed
> instead of "Fixing for Debarshi Ray's feedback." in the ChangeLog.
> That would help others to know what actually happened.
Fair point. Much more important to note the changes once we get to the
point of a released package, of course.
Wonder if you might be prepare to mark this 'review +' now (if you are
able)? If not, perhaps it would be better to continue this discussion on
More information about the Fedora-maintainers