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=759057
--- Comment #7 from Mohamed El Morabity pikachu.2014@gmail.com 2012-01-10 18:45:17 EST --- (In reply to comment #6)
I am not sure how you got these warnings: [julas@snowball2 SPECS]$ rpm -q SOIL-devel SOIL-devel-1.07-3.20080706.fc16.x86_64 [julas@snowball2 SPECS]$ rpmlint SOIL-devel SOIL-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. [julas@snowball2 SPECS]$ ls -l /usr/include/SOIL razem 64 -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 3212 2008-07-07 image_DXT.h -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 2287 2008-07-07 image_helper.h -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 15545 2008-07-07 SOIL.h -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 15447 2008-07-07 stbi_DDS_aug_c.h -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 797 2008-07-07 stbi_DDS_aug.h -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 16945 2008-07-07 stb_image_aug.h I think it is a side-effect of your sed replacement, -m 644 got missing somehow.
Indeed, sorry for this mistake.
Are you 100 % positive that overriding the makefile variables is better than sed? A proper patch would be the best, but it is impossible for macros encoding arch-dependent paths. To me it seems to be the matter of personal preference -
You're absolutely and totally right. The problem I see with sed is that you could modify more (or less) than what you want. For example: sed -i "s|-O2 -Wall|$RPM_OPT_FLAGS -fPIC|" alternate\ Makefile.txt If this Makefile is updated, for example compilation flags are added, this sed command will skip the new options added; if flags are removed, this sed command will be ignored. Unless your sed command is robust enough to take into account such situations, I think overriding Makefile variables is maybe a better way to customize the build/installation.
I find the sed overrides more legible since they change one thing at a time.
By adding line breaks in the long make command, it's still readable ^^.