[Bug 211626] Review Request: xtide - Calculate tide all over the world

[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 report.

Summary: Review Request: xtide - Calculate tide all over the world


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211626





------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp  2006-10-21 10:52 EST -------
Well, before fixing this...

(In reply to comment #6)
> It seems to me that it should be (with 0 instead of 1)
> %define          libtcd_rel       0.%{fedora_rel}
> %define          tcdutils_rel     0.%{fedora_rel}.date%{tcdutils_date2}

Well, I have been troubled with versioning. Usually your proposition
is appropriate. However, "0." means (in fedora) "this is a pre or beta version"
and 
* by libtcd.html, xtide src includes the "formal" (what I mean is not pre)
  2.1.3 version.
* for tcdutils, this is actually not pre version.

> For libtcd
> instead of 
> export CC="gcc `rpm --eval %%optflags` -DCOMPAT114"
> there should be something along 
> %{__make} %{?_smp_mflags} \
>   OPTFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS -DCOMPAT114" \
> ......
> 
> For xtide
> -L/usr/lib shouldn't be there, it is allready on the linker path.
> (and anyway it should be -L%{_libdir})
> -L./libtcd is certainly unneeded in extracxxflags
> 
> `rpm --eval %%optflags` should be replaced by %{optflags}, rpm
> shouldn't be called explicitely.
> 
> The 
> /sbin/ldconfig $(pwd)/libtcd || :
> is very dubious. In my opinion it shouldn't be there.
I thought that, however, without this I get:

+ LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/home/tasaka1/rpmbuild/BUILD/xtide-2.9dev/libtcd
+ ./tcd-utils/build_tide_db harmonics-2004-06-14.tcd harmonics-2004-06-14.txt
./tcd-utils/build_tide_db: error while loading shared libraries: libtcd.so.2:
cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory

> You should use consistently %optflags and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
Okay, I will fix.

> I propose the following for tcd-utils:
> %{__make} %{?_smp_mflags} \
>   CXXFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS -I../libtcd -DCOMPAT114" \
>   CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS -I../libtcd -DCOMPAT114" \
>   LDFLAGS="-L../libtcd"
> together with the modified tcd-utils-1.3.7-shared.patch I'll attach,
> which adds LDFLAGS. 

Okay, I will check it later.

> I don't see why the somajor/minor/ver should be different from 0.0.0.
Umm, upstream has released libtcd version 1, which is API imcompatible
with version 2. Through version 2 libctd seems API compatible.
So I want to have SOMAJOR number 2 (and others similar).

How do you think of soname versioning?
 

(In reply to comment #8)
> > # local user fails on writing ld.so.cache file
> > /sbin/ldconfig $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir} || :
> 
> Um, no. <snip> The original
> suggestion in bug 211623 was to run ldconfig with option -n to  ...
Okay. I will fix this.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
In short:

Well, before fixing this, will you tell me how do you think of
A. libtcd and tcd-utils release numbering (0<->1)
B. libtcd.so share object loading problem
C. soname versioning 
?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.