On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 10:35:33 +0300, Oron Peled wrote:
>
> On Sunday 29 September 2013 21:22:24 Lars Kellogg-Stedman wrote:
> > I went ahead and generated a patch to the Makefile that uses the
> > package version for the library version.
>
> That's wrong, as library versions represent API/ABI cha
On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 12:38:25 -0400, Lars Kellogg-Stedman wrote:
> [...] what the upstream Makefile
> currently produces. I wasn't sure how invasive I should be in terms
> of patching the upstream build process.
The build output is "silent" using '@' command invocations in the Makefile.
Patching
On Sunday 29 September 2013 21:22:24 Lars Kellogg-Stedman wrote:
> I went ahead and generated a patch to the Makefile that uses the
> package version for the library version.
That's wrong, as library versions represent API/ABI changes and
the numbering has different *semantics* than package versi
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 12:38:25PM -0400, Lars Kellogg-Stedman wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 06:14:30PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > A version-less library is less than ideal, however. How stable is the
> > API/ABI?
>
> Yeah, that's my feeling, too, but that's what the upstream Makefile
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 06:14:30PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Doesn't look too bad ;) judging based on very brief look at the spec file,
> but it violates the Static Library Packaging Guidelines, and I wonder
> who "owns" %{_datadir}/re?
I've removed the static library and made the package a
On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 11:59:43 -0400, Lars Kellogg-Stedman wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I've just submitted my first package review request to Fedora
> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1013363), which is for
> "libre" (http://www.creytiv.com/re.html). This is a dependency for
> "baresi
