[Bug 564520] Review Request: frama-c - Framework for source code analysis of C software

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=564520

--- Comment #11 from Alan Dunn <amdunn@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-02-16 20:54:38 EST ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> I've started to walk through the Fedora Guidelines and comparing with this
> draft package.  Here are some more comments.
> 
> The %files list isn't right.  It ends with:
>  %exclude %{_datadir}/frama-c

That is a mistake on my part.

> which makes these lines pointless:
>  %{_datadir}/frama-c/why
>  %{_datadir}/frama-c/manuals
> Basically, %{_datadir}/frama-c/why and ../manuals don't get packaged at all.
> The file list in -devel don't look right at all to me; they look like examples
> but NOT code necessary for developers depending on frama-c.
> (See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:OCaml for more on OCaml -devel
> packages.)
> I suggest re-examining the %files list, so that they get split more cleanly
> *AND* so that there's a -doc subpackage.

What I wanted to put in there was the code that is necessary to compile plugins
with Frama-C. At minimum, the Makefiles in that group are necessary, and I
thought that the extra files in there were necessary for plugin compilation,
but this appears to be untrue - I will need to re-examine exactly what is
necessary for plugin compilation. (It may well be more of the files as in a
conventional OCaml package, but to begin with I purposely did not package this
like an OCaml library because I thought one would not need some of the Frama-C
files.)

I suppose the documentation is large enough to require a doc package.

> Strictly speaking, what you're packaging is "Frama-C Beryllium 2" not
> "Beryllium".

True.

> This package contains a GUI, so there should be a .desktop file.

Also true.

> The Makefile uses "$(CP)" everywhere, but its definition (in
> share/Makefile.common) doesn't preserve timestamps (this impacts the 'make
> install' in the -devel package in particular).  You need to try to preserve
> timestamps.  One way would be to modify share/Makefile.common so that:
>  CP      = cp -f
> becomes:
>  CP      = cp -f --preserve=timestamps
>
> Have you tried passing the SMP flags, e.g.:
>   make %{?_smp_mflags}
> if that FAILS, then that should be documented, otherwise you should try to
> build using SMP.

I'll make these last two changes as well.

-- 
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.
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

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