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