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: flex-old - Legacy version of flex, a tool for creating scanners https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220381 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2006-12-29 22:49 EST ------- This builds fine for me; a few comments: rpmlint says: W: compat-flex devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/flex-compat/FlexLexer.h I think this is OK; the whole point of flex is to produce C output which requires this header. W: compat-flex devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libfl-compat.a Static libraries are generally frowned upon, but I don't know enough about just how flex is used to say whether this is completely unacceptable. The makeinstall macro should not be used unless there is no other choice. Does the preferred "make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}" not work? What's the purpose of the fine command at the end of %install with no action? I guess it's just debugging. You should follow the recommendations from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets for installing the info files. Specifically, you don't need the loop (there's only the one .info file anyway) and you should really have the "|| :" bit there so no-documentation installs don't break. Your comment about needing to set up an extras account makes me think that you'll need to be sponsored; if so, this ticket should additionally block FE-NEEDSPONSOR. (I can offer sponsorship, but I'm unsure about the static library issue at this point.) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review