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 j.w.r.degoede@xxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |j.w.r.degoede@xxxxxx ------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede@xxxxxx 2007-02-24 06:14 EST ------- Hi all, Some remarks: -I agree that having a seperate -devel package for the header files is bogus -But I think that a -src subpackages containing the libc sources would be a good idea, as normally these aren't needed for sdcc to function, or am I missing something here? As also said on the mailinglist I like the current spec, in general it looks good. So I would like to review this and thus actually get it into extras. However since the special nature of this and all the talk about other corss-compilers, I would like to suggest having 2 reviewers. What I have in mind is that I do a formal review and that Ralf looks over my shoulder, then when I approve this package, Ralf reviews it too (which should be a no-op) when Ralf then approves it too he sets fedora-review to + and the CVS procedure can be started. Does this sound like a plan? -- 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