Re: Request for review: glpk

[Quentin Spencer <qspencer ieee org>]

Ed Hill wrote:

> Heres the promised glpk review:
>
> needswork:
> - a devel package should not install binaries -- please 
>   put the binaries into a separate non-devel package
>  

I see two approaches to this. I could do what is done in ginac: create a 
glpk-utils with the two binaries. On the other hand, both of the 
binaries are generated from source that is included in the examples 
directory that is intended as documentation. I'm not sure how important 
the binaries are, or if anyone actually uses them. The second option is 
to just not install them and allow someone who wants them to build them 
from the source files in the documentation.

> - the package installs 19 headers in /usr/include and they 
>   should probably be put in a subdirectory such as 
>   /usr/include/glpk
>  

I agree, but this poses a bit of a problem. My indended application for 
this library is octave 2.9.x. The octave configure script can't find the 
headers if I move them into a subdirectory of /usr/include. I happen to 
know the main developer of octave uses Debian, and the Debian package 
for GLPK puts them in /usr/include like the upstream source. So, I would 
have to lobby for some or all of these upstream maintainers to change 
this, or I would have to maintain patches in octave to make this work. 
Does anyone know another way around this?

> - please add an "rm -rf ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}" immediately after 
>   the "%install" line
>  
Oops. Thanks for catching that.

-Quentin