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: sdcc - Small Device C Compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226795 ------- Additional Comments From trond.danielsen@xxxxxxxxx 2007-02-02 04:34 EST ------- (In reply to comment #3) > Well, blow me down... I've been working the past few days on a SDCC > package as well but hadn't quite gotten my package to the point of > being able to post a review request. A few items based upon what I've > seen so far (but not a full review yet): > > 1. The "script-without-shebang" errors can be fixed with this: > > find . -type f -name \*.c | xargs chmod a-x FIXED > > 2. The zero length file errors can be ignored IMHO, it looks like > those files are required for proper functioning, even though they > are empty. Is there a typo in there? Should the zero length files be kept or not? > > 3. What about adding "libgc-devel" to the BR and --enable-libgc to the > %configure line? From what I saw in the documentation this will > help improve memory usage. I don't really know much about SDCC so > I don't know if that would mean other tradeoffs. FIXED. I have added the neccessary Requires and BuildRequires, and the package build just fine with --enable-libgc. > > 4. What about adding "latex2html" to the BR and --enable-doc to the > %configure file? This would allow the documentation to be included > in the package. FIXED For some reason, sdcc requires lyx to build the documentation, and lyx depends on latex2html. > > 5. The devel package doesn't own "%{_datadir}/sdcc". Devel package removed, see 7. > > 6. Why remove the emacs files? Why not move them to > "%{_datadir}/emacs/site-lisp/". That would make them easier to use > if someone wanted to. FIXED > > 7. The main package isn't very useful without the -devel subpackage. > Even though it will cause rpmlint to complain, what about having > the main package require the -devel subpackage, or even eliminate > the -devel subpackage and have just one package (even though that > will cause rpmlint to complain even louder). I thought about that too, but rpmlint complained, so I created the devel package. But not I have removed it again, because it makes more sense to keep everything in one package. > > 8. Is this being packaged in preparation for packaging GNU Radio? > That's why I was packaging SDCC, but my GNU Radio package is in > even less polished shape than my SDCC package. It is! There are many things still missing, for instance AVR compiler and linker. I have stared creating a spec file for avr-binutils, but I did not have time to finish it. If you want to discuss this with me, you can contact me either on #gnuradio on irc.freenode.net or on discuss-gnuradio@xxxxxxxx -- 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