[Bug 545046] Review Request: CVector - ANSI C API for Dynamic Arrays

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=545046





--- Comment #7 from Takanori MATSUURA <t.matsuu at gmail.com>  2009-12-09 06:52:48 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Uhm, I don't think the overhead of dynamic linkage is THAT great. Dynamic
> memory allocation, on the other hand, is slow.
> 
> Static linking is most helpful a) on systems that don't support dynamic linking
> and b) if you want to run the same binary on a lot of different systems without
> having to recompile it.
> 
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries
> "Packages including libraries should exclude static libs as far as possible (eg
> by configuring with --disable-static). Static libraries should only be included
> in exceptional circumstances. Applications linking against libraries should as
> far as possible link against shared libraries not static versions."
> 
> If you *really* think having the static library is necessary, then it's OK to
> ship it. I wouldn't, though.

Yes, I have read Guideline and keep it.
Hmm...
OK. static library is now removed.


> An aesthetical comment: you don't need to put so much empty lines within
> sections in the spec file. A few lines between sections (such as %build and
> %install) is enough, when there's nothing long and complicated happening. %post
> and %postun are also usually grouped together for symmetry.

Thanks.
I now get that the second empty line which is generated by rpm-spec mode in
emacs or /etc/rpmdevtools/*-template.spec means "add more command or so".


> I am willing to sponsor you if you show me your knowing of the Fedora
> guidelines, most importantly
>  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines
>  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines
> Additionally to the Packaging Guidelines, there are a bunch of language /
> application specific guidelines that are linked to in the Packaging Guidelines.
> 
> Here are some tricks of the trade:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_tricks
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues

Thanks a lot for the information and expressing sponsorship.
I'm collaborating with Jindrich (a maintainer of texlive packages) for adding
Japanese TeX support into TeXLive (and formally teTeX) for many years.  And
this process is a good time for me to re-check my packaging skill.


> I will sponsor you if you have at least one other submission and perform a
> couple of informal reviews of packages of other people.
> 
> Please review only packages *not* marked with FE-NEEDSPONSOR. I will have to do
> the full formal review after you to check that you have got everything
> correctly. Once I have sponsored you you will be able to do formal reviews of
> your own.  

Okay. I'll try.
Do I have to select the review request which don't have any reviewer comments
yet?

-- 
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.