[Bug 226795] Review Request: sdcc - Small Device C Compiler

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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 [e-mail]  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.