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 trond.danielsen@gmail.com 2007-02-02 04:34 EST ------- (In reply to comment #3)
Well, blow me down... I've been working the past few days on a SDCC package as well but hadn't quite gotten my package to the point of being able to post a review request. A few items based upon what I've seen so far (but not a full review yet):
The "script-without-shebang" errors can be fixed with this:
find . -type f -name *.c | xargs chmod a-x
FIXED
- The zero length file errors can be ignored IMHO, it looks like those files are required for proper functioning, even though they are empty.
Is there a typo in there? Should the zero length files be kept or not?
- What about adding "libgc-devel" to the BR and --enable-libgc to the %configure line? From what I saw in the documentation this will help improve memory usage. I don't really know much about SDCC so I don't know if that would mean other tradeoffs.
FIXED.
I have added the neccessary Requires and BuildRequires, and the package build just fine with --enable-libgc.
- What about adding "latex2html" to the BR and --enable-doc to the %configure file? This would allow the documentation to be included in the package.
FIXED
For some reason, sdcc requires lyx to build the documentation, and lyx depends on latex2html.
- The devel package doesn't own "%{_datadir}/sdcc".
Devel package removed, see 7.
- Why remove the emacs files? Why not move them to "%{_datadir}/emacs/site-lisp/". That would make them easier to use if someone wanted to.
FIXED
- The main package isn't very useful without the -devel subpackage. Even though it will cause rpmlint to complain, what about having the main package require the -devel subpackage, or even eliminate the -devel subpackage and have just one package (even though that will cause rpmlint to complain even louder).
I thought about that too, but rpmlint complained, so I created the devel package. But not I have removed it again, because it makes more sense to keep everything in one package.
- Is this being packaged in preparation for packaging GNU Radio? That's why I was packaging SDCC, but my GNU Radio package is in even less polished shape than my SDCC package.
It is! There are many things still missing, for instance AVR compiler and linker. I have stared creating a spec file for avr-binutils, but I did not have time to finish it. If you want to discuss this with me, you can contact me either on #gnuradio on irc.freenode.net or on discuss-gnuradio@gnu.org.