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: lush - An object-oriented Lisp interpreter and compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207839 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2006-10-15 21:57 EST ------- There are still a bunch of files under /usr/share/lush/packages/sn28/examples which prompt non-executable-script errors from rpmlint. What do you think should happen with these? The compiler is called with an odd set of flags. Some of them look to be the normal ones, but then '-O3' is used and '-g' is missing. This causes the debuginfo package to be mostly empty. I tried passing --enable-debug to %configure and this turns on debugging (and fixes the debuginfo subpackage) but drops the optimization flag. I'm not sure what to do here, other than hacking the configure script. * source files match upstream: 95010c360350bf0a489ddb4d4cfa089f lush-1.2.tar.gz 3838fc7de8367a63349635766c657fbf lush-manual.pdf * 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. X compiler flags aren't correct. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly X debuginfo package is mostly empty X rpmlint has some complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: lush = 1.2-3.fc6 = libX11.so.6()(64bit) libXft.so.2()(64bit) libXrender.so.1()(64bit) libfontconfig.so.1()(64bit) libfreetype.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * 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 (except those used internally) * 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