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=470173
--- Comment #5 from Conrad Meyer konrad@tylerc.org 2008-11-07 19:56:46 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4)
I'm seeing several issues with this package.
The COPYING file contains v2 of the GPL, but the code itself does not specify a version. Their web site indicates GPLv2+, but I do not know if the web site is a sufficient statement of intent. According to the licensing FAQ, the web site isn't consulted about this. Blocking FE-Legal for a ruling.
Right, I believed I marked the package GPLv2+ accordingly, but it'd be good to hear from Legal.
The "testsuite" directory would seem to include a test suite. Is it possible to run it at build time? If so, it needs to be run unless there's a compelling reason not to do so.
No. Or at least when I tried running them, it didn't work. (It tries to build the tests using system libraries, without those in the buildroot. Is there any easy fix for that?)
A shared library is installed but ldconfig is not called. In addition, this package seems to have a rather odd library versioning convention. The usual method is to have the library version after the ".so" but this package has it before. I'm afraid I don't understand why it would be doing this differently than almost all other libraries.
Beats me.
The static library is not permitted in the -devel package. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Librarie... This is the "static libraries and shared libraries" case.
Alright.
? license field matches the actual license. X %check is not present but a test suite seems to exist. X shared libraries are installed but ldconfig is not called. X static libraries are in the -devel package.
Added ldconfig, moved static libraries to -static subpackage.
New spec/srpm: http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SPECS/m4ri.spec http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SRPMS/m4ri-20081028-3.fc9.src.rpm