[Bug 199168] Review Request: CGAL

[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: CGAL


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199168





------- Additional Comments From laurent.rineau__fedora_extras at normalesup.org  2006-08-02 03:50 EST -------
1/ I know that static libraries should be avoided, when possible (see my not 
in comment #1). In that case, the upstream developpers do not provide shared 
library for libCGALQt.a and libcore++.a. For libcore++, I could package Core 
separately (http://www.cs.nyu.edu/exact/core/download/core_v1.7/). But, for 
libCGALQt.a, do you see a solution? Waiting for the next release which could 
have shared version for all libraries cannot be a solution: CGAL releases come 
each year. It was really a chance that I manage to make the documention files  
removed from the upstream tarball of CGAL-3.2.1 (for license issues).

2/ As regards the macros... yes I know. This spec file is configurable, so 
that it can be applied to internal release of CGAL as well. What do you mean 
by redefining name of version or release? If I am not wrong, the conditionals 
make them be defined only once. If reviewers agreed that it is two much, I 
will pruned the spec file to remove the macro, as if the default values were 
hard-coded.

3/ For the upstream source tarball, I do not understand your point. spectool 
(from package fedora-rpmdevtools) can understand the macros and give the full 
URLs.

I know pretty well the packaging guidelines. Please give me pointers to 
paragraphs that I could have missed.


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.