[Bug 988997] Review Request: bfgminer - A BitCoin miner
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Tue Oct 22 04:18:07 UTC 2013
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988997
Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #12 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com> ---
Lu(In reply to luke-jr+redhatbugs from comment #9)
> ADL/ is, as already mentioned, custom ADL-compatible headers written by
> myself and provided under a MIT license.
>
> CL/ is the official OpenCL 1.0 headers. Newer headers have created
> compatibility issues on some platforms. If you want to use system headers, I
> suggest having the build rm the directory and replace it with a symlink.
>
> lib/ is gnulib snippets, which are unfortunately not designed such that they
> can be shared. I'd be glad to make this a proper dependency if you can get
> gnulib to make that possible.
>
> libblkmaker/ can be de-bundled to another package, if the maintainers want.
> configure accepts --with-system-libblkmaker for such a case.
>
> bfgminer-devel is I presume only libblkmaker headers right now. BFGMiner
> itself does not have headers or other devel files, but does have a HACKING
> documentation file for driver development.
Thanks for the explanation, Luke! As Christopher mentioned above, gnulib is not
an issue at all. As for libblkmaker - I don't see unbundling it as a
requirement since it's not available in Fedora as a standalone package right
now. Perhaps with time when someone packages it we'll reconsider libblkmaker
situation.
OK, Paul, I don't see any other issues. I'd like to remind you to add
"Provides: bundled(gnulib)" before uploading to git, as documented here:
*
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries#Packages_granted_exceptions
As I said I don't see any other issues. so this package is
APPROVED.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
More information about the package-review
mailing list