https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810676 Björn Persson <bjorn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(pavel@xxxxxxxxxxx | |) --- Comment #20 from Björn Persson <bjorn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to comment #15) > include/zlib removed. And I see that you also delete the bundled Templates Parser now. That leaves Memory Streams, Strings Cutter, Zlib-Ada and the SHA-1 implementation. We still need to decide what to do with those. > I'm not sure but Adacore devides the code into separate shared libraries > becuase AWS can be built for different OS and architectures. I don't see how separate shared libraries would help with portability. They're still compiled for a specific OS and architecture. Dividing the code into multiple libraries can help if someone wants to use a part of AWS without pulling in all of its dependencies, but Adacore's libaws.so requires libaws_ssl.so and libaws_include.so, so their division doesn't help with that either. I don't see that Adacore's division has any advantages over a single shared library, so I accept your choice. A different division could have advantages but I'm not going to require that of you. > Using gnutls now The installed aws.gpr still mentions OpenSSL. And shouldn't it point to aws-net-std__ipv6.adb rather than aws-net-std__gnat.adb? Some other things I have noticed: · The group of the base package should be System Environment/Libraries. AWS is a library, not a daemon. I think the -tools subpackage fits best in Development/Tools. · template_parser.gpr should be deleted from aws-fedora.tgz. · LDAP support seems to be missing. Is there a good reason for that? · Please add comments explaining the patches. See <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment>. · The manual is somewhat large. Have you considered making a -doc subpackage? This is a judgment call and the choice is ultimately yours. See <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Documentation>. If you do make a -doc subpackage it may be a good idea to add a note in the description of the -devel subpackage to help users discover the -doc subpackage. · /usr/share/doc/aws and its contents should be in the -devel subpackage if you don't make a -doc subpackage. Only COPYING3 and AUTHORS need to be in the base package. The rest of the documentation is relevant to developers who use AWS in their programs, but not to users who only use a program that is linked to AWS. · INSTALL should not be packaged. It contains only build instructions so it's irrelevant to the binary package. · readme.txt, on the other hand, contains some information that could be useful to developers, so it should be packaged. · The directory docs also contains some more files that probably should be packaged. RFC.INDEX, TODO, known-problems and features-* seem useful to developers so they should be copied to /usr/share/doc/aws. · The demos should also be included as documentation. /usr/share/doc/aws/demos seems like a good location. (Don't compile the demos though.) (In reply to comment #19) > the URL is invalid, it should be http://libre.adacore.com/tools/aws and not > http://libre.adacore.com/libre/tools/AWS/ Indeed. They must have changed it because I'm sure it worked in April. Perhaps someone at Adacore doesn't know that cool URIs don't change. (http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI) -- 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