Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225997
Summary: Merge Review: libdbi Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: nobody@fedoraproject.org QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com CC: tgl@redhat.com
Fedora Merge Review: libdbi
http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/libdbi/ Initial Owner: tgl@redhat.com
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: libdbi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225997
------- Additional Comments From ville.skytta@iki.fi 2007-02-01 15:15 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=147136) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147136&action=vie...) Use $RPM_OPT_FLAGS
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2007-January/msg00339.html Build doesn't use $RPM_OPT_FLAGS, but rather hardcoded CFLAGS containing a -O20 oddball, quick and dirty fix attached.
Is the static library needed for something?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: libdbi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225997
------- Additional Comments From tgl@redhat.com 2007-02-01 20:31 EST ------- Yeah, the lack of RPM_OPT_FLAGS is a known problem both here and in libdbi-drivers; will fix when I get some time for this package.
Don't see any strong reason to keep the static library, no.
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=225997
Thomas Spura tomspur@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |tomspur@fedoraproject.org AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |tomspur@fedoraproject.org Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Spura tomspur@fedoraproject.org 2010-07-19 10:23:14 EDT --- Review:
Good: - name ok - %{optflags} are used now - no static libs - no *.la - libs correctly packaged - group ok - BR ok - parallel make
Needswork: - patch does not have an upstream bug or a comment, that it was send to the maintainer - please use INSTALL="install -p", when installing to preserve timestamps - use %{_includedir} in %files - please just use "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" and not "[ "$RPM_BUILD_ROOT" != "/" ] && rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" (That's more common and on recent fedora versions, that could even left out completely. But better let them there, till EPEL also supports them.)
- license missing: The doc is licensed under GFDL so license should be: LGPLv2+ and GFDL And please make a note in the spec file, what is under which license. see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licens...
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla