[Bug 227669] Review Request: ppl-0.9 - A modern C++ library providing numerical abstractions

[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: ppl-0.9 - A modern C++ library providing numerical abstractions


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227669





------- Additional Comments From bagnara at cs.unipr.it  2007-06-06 16:43 EST -------
> (I have not read the previous discussion in detail. Just
>  from having watched the newest spec file...)

Many thanks for having resurrected this issue: my last n messages
remained unanswered and I had stopped working on that for lack of
feedback.

> Some notes:
>
> * Static archive
>   - Please explain why you want to include static archives in -devel
>     package first. Usually this must not be done for several reasons
>     (maintainance, security, etc) and if you want to ship static archives
>     (with reasonable reason), split all static archives into different
>     subpackages.

The reasons why we need (and routinely use) static libraries are
explained in the discussion above.  In addition, the PPL can be
interfaced to several Prolog engines and some of them require to
link the library statically.  Concerning the package naming,
let me reproduce what I wrote in the discussion above:

  Coming back to the C/C++ world, there is the issue of where to put the
  static libraries.  They are now in the ppl-devel package and ppl-pwl-devel
  packages.  Should I move them to

      ppl-devel-static and ppl-pwl-devel-static

  or to

      ppl-static and ppl-pwl-static

  ?

  This would bring us to have 11 packages for PPL 0.9 and at least 13 for
  PPL 0.10.

Actually, if we follow that route, the number of packages for PPL 0.10
could reach 15.

> * macros
>   - Please use macros. For example, /usr/include should be replaced
>     with %{_includedir} and perhaps /usr/lib won't be useful for
>     x86_64 or ppc64 arch.

Right: we use %{_includedir} and %{_libdir} instead.

> * Documentation directory
>   - should usually be %{_datadir}/doc/%{name}-%{version}
> 					     ^^^^^^^^^^^^

We are now using %{_datadir}/doc/%{name} instead of /usr/share/doc/ppl.
Including the version would require too many changes (including changing
the web pages of the project) and is better postponed to PPL 0.10.

>   - and currently /usr/share/doc/ppl/ is not owned by any package.

What can I do to fix that?

> * defattr
>   - Currently we recommend %defattr(-,root,root,-)

Fixed.

> * Mockbuild
>   - fails on F-devel i386

This is a bug in the SWI-Prolog (pl) package: it requires readline-devel.
Should we work around that bug and require readline-devel ourselves?

I am copying the revised source RPM to

http://www.cs.unipr.it/ppl/Download/ftp/releases/0.9/RedHat/FC6/ppl-0.9-5.src.rpm

This comes from

http://www.cs.unipr.it/ppl/Download/ftp/releases/0.9/RedHat/FC6/ppl.spec
http://www.cs.unipr.it/ppl/Download/ftp/releases/0.9/ppl-0.9.tar.gz
http://www.cs.unipr.it/ppl/Download/ftp/releases/0.9/RedHat/FC6/ppl-0.9-docfiles.patch


-- 
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.