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
jeff@ocjtech.us changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jeff@ocjtech.us
------- Additional Comments From jeff@ocjtech.us 2007-02-02 00:24 EST ------- 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):
1. The "script-without-shebang" errors can be fixed with this:
find . -type f -name *.c | xargs chmod a-x
2. The zero length file errors can be ignored IMHO, it looks like those files are required for proper functioning, even though they are empty.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. The devel package doesn't own "%{_datadir}/sdcc".
6. 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.
7. 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).
8. 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.