[Quantlib-dev] Re: RPM spec file for QuantLib-0.3.3

[Liguo S. <Lig...@va...>]

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