[Bug 521983] New package for Dogtag PKI: osutil

[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=521983





--- Comment #7 from Matthew Harmsen <mharmsen at redhat.com>  2009-10-08 14:01:33 EDT ---
Created an attachment (id=364163)
 --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=364163)
Suggested changes for osutil.spec

The following is from an email from 'dgilmore at redhat.com':

the best and cleanest way to fix the way that dogtag builds i think is
to do the specs like the attached osutil spec file.

the biggest change is passing in the variables to ant from the spec file
rather than using perl to grep through the tarballs spec file.  the main
issue is that the spec file in the tarball is irrelevant the canonical
specfile is what will be in fedora's cvs.  at times it will be modified
outside of the maintainers control. those modifications must be preserved.


the attached spec file cleans up the unnecessary macro proliferation. it
works very similar to how we handle configure for the ant use case. its
much easier to read and follow. it doesnt build as ants xml needs some
patching but gives you the idea.

we likely should setup the ant xml to have a sane default if the user
doesn't pass in values.

there is no need to run ldconfig as the .so files are not in %{_libdir}

http://www.javalobby.org/java/forums/t102482.html  gives a small amount
of insight into why we should be using
System.load("some-absolute-path") and not
System.loadLibrary("some-path") for the jni interface. basically it
ensures someone doesn't hijack your load call. with there own .so

-- 
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.