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 rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-02-27 21:46 EST ------- (In reply to comment #27) > Looks good, > > A few last issues: > 1) The changelog entry (and your last comment) about "Disable creation of > debuginfo package" is plain wrong. sdcc contains native binaries (the > compiler, linker et all). for which we want a debuginfo package, thus the > debuginfo is a good thing. The problem was that it was an empty package. > The changelog should read something like: "Disable stripping of binaries, > so that we get a proper debuginfo package" Right, the changelog is wrong. > 2) Remove the empty %doc from the "%files src" > 3) The descripion of the -src subpackage is a bit vague, try explaning that > these are the actual sources of the c-library for the devices and that these > sources are meant for reference of how the c-library works. > > Also I see that you need a sponsor, that is not a problem I can sponsor > you, but before doing that I would like todo one more package review with > you, so can you submit another package for review and post the bugzilla > id here, then I'll reviw it and assuming that goes well then sponsor you. I don't feel able to sponsor anybody, because the ACL issues disable me from being able to fulfil the tasks I consider to a sponsor's obligations :( > Ralf, do you agree with the modifications I've requested for the package? And > what do you think of the sdcc-src subpackage? Well, I'd not have requested a 'src' package, because I don't see any use for the sources anyway, ... but this is an issue upstream should take care about. In same boat, is this package shipping the a target's library's *.o's in parallel to libraries (*.lib, *.a). Normally this doesn't make any sense, ... but this is an issue upstream should take care about. > Maybe sdcc-sources or > sdcc-libc-sources is better? Hmm, I'm not sure. sdcc-libc-sources sounds like the most "self-explanatory" package name to me, but this is a matter of personal preference. Technically, I see directory ownership issues between *-src and the main package (IMO, *-src must require the main package). Finally, I don't think the "BR: byacc" is right. It probably should be "bison". AFAIS, the toplevel configure seems to be wanting to enforce bison, but seems to fail on this. -- 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