[Bug 227669] Review Request: <ppl-0.9> - <A modern C++ library providing numerical abstractions>

[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: <ppl-0.9> - <A modern C++ library providing numerical abstractions>


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227669





------- Additional Comments From bagnara at cs.unipr.it  2007-02-18 06:34 EST -------
Hi there,

in one week we have made considerable progress.  Now, with the source rpm

http://www.cs.unipr.it/ppl/Download/ftp/releases/0.9/RedHat/FC6/ppl-0.9-2.src.rpm
which comes from

http://www.cs.unipr.it/ppl/Download/ftp/releases/0.9/RedHat/FC6/ppl.spec
http://www.cs.unipr.it/ppl/Download/ftp/releases/0.9/ppl-0.9.tar.gz
http://www.cs.unipr.it/ppl/Download/ftp/releases/0.9/RedHat/FC6/ppl-0.9-docfiles.patch

I obtain the following:

$ rpmlint -i /home/roberto/rpm/SRPMS/ppl-0.9-2.src.rpm
$ rpmlint -i /home/roberto/rpm/RPMS/x86_64/ppl*.rpm
W: ppl-gprolog-devel no-dependency-on ppl-gprolog
W: ppl-swiprolog-devel no-dependency-on ppl-swiprolog
W: ppl-yap-devel no-dependency-on ppl-yap

I don't know if the three residual warnings are acceptable.
The point is that the C/C++ model appears to be different from the one
used in Prolog.  Before I changed the names of the packages from `*'
to `*-devel' I had lots of warnings concerning text files and static
libraries in non-devel packages, but that files need to be there in
order for the interfaces to be generally usable.  Having both a non-devel
and a devel package for these interfaces does not make sense from
the user point of view.  To summarize:

- To make rpmlint happy it seems one should have both `*' to `*-devel',
  but then what to put in each of those?  They should both installed
  to end up with something usable.
- If we can afford living with an unhappy rpmlint, then should we name the
  packages `*' or `*-devel'?

Coming back to the C/C++ world, there is the issue of where to put the
static libraries.  They are now in the ppl-devel package and ppl-pwl-devel
packages.  Should I move them to

    ppl-devel-static and ppl-pwl-devel-static

or to

    ppl-static and ppl-pwl-static

?

This would bring us to have 11 packages for PPL 0.9 and at least 13 for
PPL 0.10.
Many thanks again,

    Roberto


-- 
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.