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=705585 --- Comment #6 from Jerry James <loganje...@gmail.com> 2011-05-27 12:15:26 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) > Well, because both are independent projects, they should be two separate > packages, isn't it? They should, yes. Let's continue on that path. > How about trying to build the new givaro, then fflas-ffpack and then the new > linbox locally, and if it works as expected, add this package separately? I have done that. I've got a working linbox on my machine, with the fflas-ffpack from comment 4, and an updated givaro. > Maybe building fflas-ffpack without linbox support would work, then build > linbox against fflas-ffpack and then add linbox support (if there is any). > Right now, linbox is only needed in an utils header file with ifdef's around, > so I don't see a problem, when no linbox is around. > > Where do you think is BR: linbox needed? I only see a R on linbox... I agree it's an R. What I meant is that if linbox BRs fflas-ffpack-devel, and fflas-ffpack-devel Rs linbox-devel, then koji will have to install both fflas-ffpack-devel and the previous version of linbox-devel in order to build a new linbox. Because of the ifdefs you noted, I don't think fflas-ffpack-devel should *Require* linbox-devel, anyway. In fact, the Requires will have to go the other way; linbox-devel must R fflas-ffpack-devel. Are you okay with the plan I gave for adding a %check section? It can't be there on the initial import, but once givaro and linbox are updated, I can go back and update fflas-ffpack to add the %check section. -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
