Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gauche - Scheme script interpreter with multibyte character handling https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188168 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2006-04-28 01:29 EST ------- Something seems to have busted; now I can't build any of the packages you've submitted on the development branch. Things start to go off here: os_dep.c:20:30: error: linux/version.h: No such file or directory In file included from /usr/include/asm/signal.h:5, from os_dep.c:27: /usr/include/asm-x86_64/signal.h:6:27: error: linux/linkage.h: No such file or directory In file included from /usr/include/asm-x86_64/signal.h:7, from /usr/include/asm/signal.h:5, from os_dep.c:27: /usr/include/linux/time.h:9: error: redefinition of 'struct timespec' /usr/include/linux/time.h:15: error: redefinition of 'struct timeval' /usr/include/linux/time.h:42: error: redefinition of 'struct itimerspec' In file included from /usr/include/asm/signal.h:5, from os_dep.c:27: /usr/include/asm-x86_64/signal.h:15: error: conflicting types for 'sigset_t' /usr/include/signal.h:50: error: previous declaration of 'sigset_t' was here In file included from /usr/include/asm/signal.h:5, from os_dep.c:27: /usr/include/asm-x86_64/signal.h:102: error: redefinition of 'struct sigaction' /usr/include/asm-x86_64/signal.h:103: error: expected ':', ',', ';', '}' or '__attribute__' before '.' token /usr/include/asm-x86_64/signal.h:113: error: redefinition of 'struct sigaltstack' I'll attach a build log, but fortunately things still build on the FC5 release branch, and that's all that's required, so I'll proceed with the review on that basis. I think something must have busted since I last pulled from rawhide a couple of days ago. The first file it can't find, /usr/include/linux/version.h, is in FC5 part of glibc-kernheaders but it's not there in current rawhide. Issues: You should package the COPYING file as %doc. I'm inclined to ignore the remaining rpmlint complaint. In reality fixing gauche-config should be a simple matter of patching src/genconfig.in, but I have no way of knowing what that might break. And anyway, compilers tend to be something of a special case (c.f. gcc). There's a test suite that you don't call; I added %check cd src; LD_LIBRARY_PATH=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir} make test and it runs and, most importantly, passes. Review: * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * license field matches the actual license. X license is open source-compatible and is included upstream but is not included in the package. * source files match upstream: 5c7cb6eba7455c9877aec884b0088a25 Gauche-0.8.7.tgz 5c7cb6eba7455c9877aec884b0088a25 Gauche-0.8.7.tgz-srpm * BuildRequires are proper. * package builds in mock (fc5, i386 and x86_64). O rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane. * shared libraries are present; ldconfig is called as necessary. * package is not relocatable. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * %clean is present. X %check is not present, but upstream includes one that can easily be run. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * headers present and in a -devel package. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. * not a GUI app. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review