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=475065 --- Comment #10 from Conrad Meyer <konrad@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-05-30 23:41:12 EDT --- (In reply to comment #9) > Here is my shot at this. > > General comments: > * givaro-makefile is a makefile and not an executable shell script. Remove the > $!/bin/sh from it and move the file into %doc. Why should we put this in %doc? How is it remotely helpful? > *Why are the header files split into two sections (gmp++ and %{name})? This may > be related to a later point I make about the configure script. gmp++ is C++ bindings for gmp, I think. > * MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in > the review.[1]] > > $ rpmlint ../SRPMS/givaro-3.2.13-2.fc10.src.rpm > ../RPMS/i386/givaro-3.2.13-2.fc10.i386.rpm givaro.spec > givaro.i386: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libgivaro.so.0.0.2 > exit@xxxxxxxxx > 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. > > Please inform upstream that it is not a good idea to do this, or patch this > out (if possible). Offending file is: src/kernel/zpz/givzpz16table1.C: Line 46. > Could be replaced with an exception or some kind of return code propagation. No > idea what the easiest solution is. If upstream is informed that they shouldn't > do this, and replies with something sensible, I don't see this as a block. This is poor coding practice by upstream, but it isn't a blocker. > ... > Please consider adding AUTHORS and ChangeLog (not a blocker) Ok (though this is not something I feel strongly about). > ... > * MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, > as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no > upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL > Guidelines for how to deal with this. > FAIL: URL provided gives 404 error. (The requested URL > /CASYS/LOGICIELS/givaro/givaro-3.2.13.tar.gz was not found on this server.) > Please update URL or request upstream to not remove old tarballs. Again, upstream's fault... > ... > * SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A > package should not segfault instead of running, for example. > Would it be better to patch the -config file to return /usr/include/givaro/ > for --cflags rather than /usr/include ? Also it would be good if `givaro-config > --cflags --libs` did not return endlines. (add -n to lines 58 and 62, also add > leading space to linker & include flags). Finally this may be because of the > gmp++ bit? Something like that sounds necessary, yes. > The examples given on the website are a bit bogus -- requires some > preprocessor that doesn't exist (404 again). Could you pack a trivial example > that compiles into doc directory? Sorry, I'm not familiar with the use of this library, I'm just interested in getting SAGE (and dependencies) packaged and in Fedora. > ... Thanks for the review! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review