[Bug 719757] Review Request: apron - Numerical abstract domain library

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Fri Nov 4 21:21:56 UTC 2011

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


--- Comment #5 from Jerry James <loganjerry at gmail.com> 2011-11-04 17:21:55 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> [?] Be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing
> Guidelines 
> *** Just need to clarify the multiple licenses in the SPEC file. May also need
> to reflect in the relevant %file section (ie 
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios

I added a comment to explain the license situation.  Unfortunately, there is no
way to address the problem via %files, as the differently licensed file gets
compiled into the library along with everything else.

> [?] library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package
> *** You have separated the *_debug.so files out into a separate package?

On second thought, we don't really want these in Fedora.  I have removed the
debug versions of the libraries altogether.

> [?] Packaged according to Fedora OCAML packaging guidelines
> **** Do you need an explicit Requires: apron-devel in package
> ocaml-apron-devel? 
> Similiarly -debug packages.
> see: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:OCaml#-devel_subpackage

Ah, right.  I was thinking apron-devel wasn't needed because it just contains C
header files, but it also contains the *.so files, doesn't it?  Okay, added.

> [?] Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using
> a fully versioned dependency
> Do you need an explicit Requires: apron-debug in package ocaml-apron-debug?

I removed them, so the point is moot. :-)  New versions:

Spec URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/apron/apron.spec
SRPM URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/apron/apron-0.9.10-3.fc15.src.rpm

Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.

More information about the package-review mailing list