[Bug 195683] Review Request: smarteiffel - The GNU Eiffel Compiler and Libraries

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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: smarteiffel - The GNU Eiffel Compiler and Libraries


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195683





------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx  2006-09-21 23:54 EST -------
After running through my checklist, the only remaining issue I have is that the
installed package is about 91MB, but 68MB of that is documentation which does
bring up the question of whether the documentation should be in a subpackage. 
What do you think?  (Honestly I'd prefer not to have to build this again, but
there really is a big pile of documentation there.)

68128   ./usr/share/doc
81508   ./usr/share
91228   ./usr
91244   .

* source files match upstream:
   77b3ab3895c6fced2cb1649b4ca80547  SmartEiffel-2-2.tar.bz2
* 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)
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
* package installs properly
* debuginfo would be empty and is disabled.
* rpmlint has only acceptable complaints.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   config(smarteiffel) = 2.2-4.fc6
   smarteiffel = 2.2-4.fc6
  =
   /bin/sh
   config(smarteiffel) = 2.2-4.fc6
* %check is not present; no runnable test suite.
* no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
* 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.
* headers (and various source files) are installed as appropriate for a compiler.
* 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

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]