[Bug 466737] Review Request: matio - Library for reading/writing Matlab MAT files

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=466737


Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |tibbs at math.uh.edu
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




--- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu>  2008-10-16 00:01:38 EDT ---
A few comments:

Why would you need to define _default_patch_fuzz for a new package?  It seems
that at least the initial package should have patches which apply cleanly.

matio-1.3.3-fortanpath.patch seems to lack an 'r'.

There are a few commented-out bits I don't quite understand:

  #sed -i.fortranpath2 -e 's|src/fortran/matio_t.inc|src/matio_t.inc|' 
    configure.ac configure
Is this made unnecessary by the .fortranpath2 patch?

  #To disable rpath
  #./bootstrap
Not sure why this is in there.

What's the doxygen bit for?  Did you just not want to ship the pdf file? 
(Nothing would require doing that, and if you're not going to ship it then it
makes sense not to generate it, but a comment about why might help.)

The need to move the source files (and the patches you have to carry to support
that) just because rpm doesn't generate debuginfo properly is troubling.  It's
certainly OK if you want to do that, but I wonder if the problem is fully
understood.  Is there a bug open against rpm for this issue?

I'll finish this review up tomorrow.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.