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: gambit-c - Gambit-C Scheme programming system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=449707 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2008-06-06 15:59 EST ------- This builds OK; rpmlint has several devel-file-in-non-devel-package complaints, which can be ignored because this is a compilation system. There are also these: gambit-c-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/gambc-v4_2_8/lib/mem.c gambit-c-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/gambc-v4_2_8/lib/setup.h which aren't a big deal but trivially fixed with a chmod in %prep if you care. I'm not sure about the license. ASL 2.0 is certainly correct, but it seems to me that they allow LGPLv2+, not just LGPLv2. Am I missing something? I don't see anywhere in the source that a specific LGPL version is specified, and if you click the link on their web site you go to FSF's LGPLv3 page. Perhaps you could get them to clarify. There seems to be a test suite present which isn't called. I added %check make check and it runs fine, ending with: ============ ALL TESTS SUCCESSFUL Note that /usr/bin/six conflicts with the existing (and completely unrelated) six package. Is there any possibility of renaming it? Did you consider moving the info documentation and the examples to gambit-c-doc as well? The examples, at least, are almost another megabyte, although that's dwarfed by the rest of the package. * source files match upstream: e07d0031e434fc98a8b3ac136fe2426280cc342b8e3b3a325c7348938d5bae11 gambc-v4_2_8.tgz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. ? license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint has trivial complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: gambit-c-4.2.8-1.fc10.x86_64.rpm gambit-c = 4.2.8-1.fc10 = /bin/sh gcc info libutil.so.1()(64bit) libutil.so.1(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) gambit-c-doc-4.2.8-1.fc10.x86_64.rpm gambit-c-doc = 4.2.8-1.fc10 = gambit-c = 4.2.8-1.fc10 X %check is not present, but a functional test suite exists. * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. O file perms in the -debuginfo package are a bit odd; everything else is OK. * scriptlets OK (install-info). * code, not content. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * headers present, but OK since this is a compiler. * no pkgconfig files. * static libraries present, but OK since this is a compilation system. * no libtool .la files. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review