[Bug 218195] Review Request: scipy - array processing for numbers, strings, records, and objects.
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Sun Dec 3 23:09:32 UTC 2006
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: scipy - array processing for numbers, strings, records, and objects.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218195
jamatos at fc.up.pt changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779
nThis| |
------- Additional Comments From jamatos at fc.up.pt 2006-12-03 18:09 EST -------
(In reply to comment #3)
> The rpmlint warnings concerning the .h files down in the python
site-packages
> tree are a matter of interpretation I think. Since these files are not in
> /usr/include/python2.4/ I'm not sure there is an expectation that they are
to be
> built against. There are many python packages which continue to place .h
files
> down in the site-packages tree without splitting into a -devel.
>
> The only python module packages that I am aware of that uses a devel
subpackage
> install their .h files into the /usr/include/python2.4/ tree.
python-ogg-devel
> for example. But even that isn't consistently done, python-numarry doesn't
> make the effort. I don't have a problem splitting this stuff off, I just
don't
> want to set a new packaging policy precedent in the process.
>
> If you could point me to a python module package (ie not a graphical
end-user
> application) which has .h files down in site-packages and splits out
a -devel
> subpackage I'd like to look over its spec as a reference.
You are right. This is not blocking, more like a wish. :-)
> I fixed the %install section issue and the silly dot at the end of the
summar.
Good, I changed the status of this review to approved.
> Can you tell I'm a couple of months out of practise. I'm going to play with
the
> requires and buildrequires a little to see if I can answer the questions.
For
> example, I don't know if this will work with fftw version 3....yet.
From the build log:
fft_opt_info:
fftw3_info:
libraries fftw3 not found in /usr/local/lib
libraries fftw3 not found in /usr/lib
fftw3 not found
NOT AVAILABLE
fftw2_info:
FOUND:
libraries = ['rfftw', 'fftw']
library_dirs = ['/usr/lib64']
define_macros = [('SCIPY_FFTW_H', None)]
include_dirs = ['/usr/include']
This was why I asked. :-)
> -jef
--
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.
More information about the Fedora-package-review
mailing list