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(a)freenet.de 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.