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: brandy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202004 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2006-08-15 13:58 EST ------- Finally my mirror is updated and I can build again. This still builds fine and indeed all of the documentation and examples are there. However, there are a couple of issues: Proper flags are not pased to the compiler. I use this hack at the end of %prep to get them passed properly; the resulting package still seems to work correctly: perl -pi -e "s/^(CFLAGS.*=.*)/\1 %{optflags}/" makefile I wonder if the examples would be more proper as documentation. This would be more in line with what I've seen in the past, but I don't think it's a blocker. * source files match upstream: 0aedef51e76cf07533d82fe4dcd89efa brandy_119.tgz * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper (none!) X compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * debuginfo package looks complete (even though the compiler flags are wrong, -g is still passed) * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: brandy = 1.0.19-2.fc6 = (no non-glibc or rpm dependencies) * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. Manual testing shows that things at least install and run. (My BASIC is not the best after a couple of decades of disuse.) * no shared libraries are present. * 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. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. -- 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