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 j.w.r.degoede@xxxxxx 2007-02-28 04:18 EST ------- (In reply to comment #28) > (In reply to comment #27) > > 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 :( > Hmm, good point. I'll ask trond to open up the ACL for atleast the both of us when its imported. Also I must say I've never actually needed write access to a package of someone I sponsored so I'm okay with sponsering him even with the ACL's. > 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. > There are no .a files only .o or .rel files and .lib files, these .lib files are not archives but linker scripts pointing to the .o / .rel files so that is fine. > > 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. > I like that the best too, Trond can you change the package name for the sources to sdcc-libc-sources > Technically, I see directory ownership issues between *-src and the main package > (IMO, *-src must require the main package). > Agreed, Trond can you add this Requires > 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. Well it seems to except both, bot to prefere bison, so indeed that BR (BuildRequires) should be changed to bison. -- 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