Re: RPM spec file for QuantLib-0.3.3
Posted by Liguo Song on Aug 27, 2003; 3:23am
URL: http://quantlib.414.s1.nabble.com/Re-RPM-spec-file-for-QuantLib-0-3-3-tp10308p10309.html
Hi, Luigi,
> I've been trying to add the spec to the cvs tree. My question
> is, does it need to include the version number in its name? I wouldn't
> want to remove it from cvs and add it again each time we release...
I was trying to follow a convention, which obviously doesn't work well here. So,
we don't need to include the version number it its name. Sorry for the trouble.
>> There are still a lot to improve with this spec file, and I'd like to
>> hear
>> some opinions about the following issues:
>> 1. It is conventional to separate the dynamic libs, static libs, and
>> header files into separate packages. Should we do the same thing here?
>
>
> As you like it.
I will update the current RPM spec file first. If there is still time, I will
try to seperate them into different packages.
>> 2. Cppunit is only needed for the test-suite, so should we still
>> make it
>> required? Or just drop the test-suite if no cppunit is available?
>
>
> I would just drop the test-suite.
I will configure the spec file in such way that the test-suite will be dropped
if cppunit is not present.
>> 3. The documents for QuantLib is not included in the tar ball
>> right now,
>> should I put the docs into the RPM package?
>
>
> Maybe it might be another package? (or packages?)
Yes. I will work on the doc package later.
>
>> 4. A relative minor point about the name, is quantlib better than
>> QuantLib? As the Unix name of the project is quantlib.
>
>
> As you like it.
Then, quantlib it is. Somehow, it pleases the eyes. :)
Later.
Liguo