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: polyml - Poly/ML compiler and runtime system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229728 bugzilla@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Severity|normal |medium ------- Additional Comments From gemi@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-03-27 07:31 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1) > The spec file contains wild cards in the %files section. This makes it > difficult to verify that the package contains all the files it should. ok, in moderation > The docs are huge (2 megabytes). Please split them into a separate -doc package. ok > There are some rpmlint warnings: > > W: polyml devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libpolyml.so > W: polyml devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libpolymain.a Since polyml is a compiler, development files are ok (see also gcc, etc.) > In the spec file, please compress the BuldRequires lines into a single entry. I prefer it this way, it is much clearer. I would even go so far as disallow more than one entry per line. > Please provide a proper description for the -libs package. ok http://math.ifi.unizh.ch/fedora/6/i386/SRPMS.gemi/polyml-5.0-2.src.rpm -- 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