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: zfuzz - Z fuzz - Type-checker and LaTeX style for Z spec language https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452559 ------- Additional Comments From dwheeler@xxxxxxxxxxxx 2008-06-25 18:14 EST ------- I've responded to comment 8 - the new release (number 3) is at: http://www.dwheeler.com/zfuzz-20070911-3.fc9.src.rpm http://www.dwheeler.com/zfuzz-20070911-3.fc9.i386.rpm http://www.dwheeler.com/zfuzz.spec This new zfuzz.spec file is rpmlint-clean, just like the previous ones were. I also did: koji build --scratch dist-f9 zfuzz-20070911-3.fc9.src.rpm and all architectures successfully completed (5 done, 0 failed) with this release (3) on Fedora 9. Here's how I handled each comment in comment 8: >* I think it is better to use sed instead of perl for one-liners Ok, done (with sed -i). BuildRequires: perl removed, because of this. >* gcc is not needed in BuildRequires (see the exceptions in guidelines) It's not NEEDED, but it is PERMITTED, so I thought it'd be better to be explicit. But I don't really care, so I've removed it. >* use the virtual provides like tex(tex) and tex(latex) instead of > explicitely depending on texlive Ah! Good point! Done. >* coments are good, but some of your comments are, in my opinion, (much) > too long. For example the one about not splitting the package could be ># the package contains few glyphs, but separating a font subpackages would ># seemed unnecessary and confusing since it should be the only package using ># the fonts > >* also some comments are redundant. For example you comment twice that > mf and pk files are installed such that they don't have to be recreated. > >* paraphrasing the whole INSTALL file is not useful either. Okay, shortened comments significantly. >* you could split out the latex part, in tex-zfuzz. True, but as I commented, I saw little point in doing so. The type-checker and latex style are meant to be used together, and are combined in upstream anyway. If that's wrong, they could be split later, but I doubt anyone will want it that way. >* the %description is much too long. Ok, shortened. >* regarding the .pdf it is better to have the source and be able to > rebuild from source in fedora. But even if it cannot be regenerated > it is better to package it. > There is no license issue because it is BSD, and it can be allowed in > fedora because it is content. Good! That was my exactly my thinking as well, which is why I packaged it this way. >* The %build section has too much comments. Most of your code is > self-documented Ok, comments removed/shortened. >* I think that a patch for adding the DESTDIR would be better than the > substitution and I hope that upstream would accept it. Done. I would hope that too, but I don't control upstream :-). I _will_ send the patches (and the spec file) to upstream once it's passed review. >* I don't think that CFLAGS can be defined when make is launched. Sure it can, it works just fine. CFLAGS is just yet another make variable. Easy test: if you remove the CFLAGS text in this .spec file, the options passed to gcc change radically. -- 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