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=461757
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Cagney cagney@redhat.com 2008-09-11 14:52:33 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3)
Suggestions:-
- you can altenatively use version as
%define upstreamid 20080818 Version: 0.%{upstreamid} This will help you in future if you switch to releases like 1.0 or 1.0.0 otherwise you need to use always date as version.
ah, i was wondering about that; I've changed it.
- You should use shared libraries scriptlet as per given here
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#Shared_libraries
doh, missed the %postun; added
- you should use "install -Dp" as per given here
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Timestamps
I've added the -p
- Though not mandatory but good if you use defattr as
%defattr(-,root,root,-) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/CreatingPackageHowTo#.25fi...
I've changed this.
- Package build is failed
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=819456 You should use make as make %{?_smp_mflags} CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS -I."
I've added the flags; I'm also going to check an x86-64 build (I needed to finish reviving my fedora access).
Why you want to include -static package? See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries
I've removed it.
It was in case a developer needed it (I think we should start making available profiled libraries also but that is another story :-).
(In reply to comment #4)
I see no versioned libdwarf.so.*.*.* symlinks to libdwarf.so are created and not included in libdwarf rpm. Do you want to create them? In that case then you need to follow
- MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1),
then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package.
For the moment no.