[Bug 263121] New: Review Request: pharosc - VLSI and ASIC Technology Standard Cell Libraries

[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.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=263121

Summary: Review Request: pharosc - VLSI and ASIC Technology
                    Standard Cell Libraries
           Product: Fedora
           Version: devel
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: Linux
            Status: NEW
          Severity: medium
          Priority: medium
         Component: Package Review
        AssignedTo: [e-mail]
        ReportedBy: [e-mail]
         QAContact: [e-mail]
                CC: [e-mail],[e-mail]

Spec URL: http://chitlesh.fedorapeople.org/pharosc/pharosc.spec
SRPM URL: http://chitlesh.fedorapeople.org/pharosc/pharosc-8.3-1.fc7.src.rpm
Description:
VLSI and ASIC Technology Standard Cell Libraries.
There are five new open source standard cell libraries, the
 * vsclib,
 * wsclib,
 * vxlib,
 * vgalib and
 * rgalib.

[Bug 263121] Review Request: pharosc - VLSI and ASIC Technology Standard Cell Libraries

[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: pharosc - VLSI and ASIC Technology Standard Cell Libraries

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=263121

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|[e-mail]    |[e-mail]
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?

[Bug 263121] Review Request: pharosc - VLSI and ASIC Technology Standard Cell Libraries

[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: pharosc - VLSI and ASIC Technology Standard Cell Libraries

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=263121

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-08-29 18:04 EST -------
 [ OK ] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
 [ OK ] Spec file name must match the base package.
 [ OK ] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
 [ OK ] Package successfully to build into binary rpms on at least one
        supported architecture.
 [ CHECK ] Tested on: Mock [FC-devel]

[ OK ] Package is not relocatable.
 [ OK ] Buildroot is correct
 [ OK ] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license.
 [ OK ] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 [ OK ] License type: LGPL
 [ OK ] The source package includes the text of the license(s).
 [ OK ] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
 [ SKIP ] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
 [ OK ] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
 [ OK ] The spec file handles locales properly.
 [ SKIP ] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
 [ Ok ] Package must own all directories that it creates.
 [ OK ] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 [ OK ] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
 [ OK ] Permissions on files are set properly.
 [ OK ] Package has a %clean section.
 [ OK ] Package consistently uses macros.
 [ OK ] Package contains code, or permissable content.
 [ OK ] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
 [ CHECK ] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
 [ SKIP] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [ SKIP ] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [ SKIP ] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
 [ SKIP ] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [ CHECK ] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
 [ OK ] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
 [ SKIP ] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file.
 [ OK ] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.

# Quick comment

* some files which're installed in subpackage (such as README, templates/)
should be marked as %doc

* Just add a quick comment in %build stage even if there's no build action.

[Bug 263121] Review Request: pharosc - VLSI and ASIC Technology Standard Cell Libraries

[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: pharosc - VLSI and ASIC Technology Standard Cell Libraries

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=263121

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-08-29 18:42 EST -------
(In reply to comment #1)
> # Quick comment
> some files which're installed in subpackage (such as README, templates/)
>
> should be marked as %doc

Actually it is simple to say but it complicates usage as README and templates 
may come from different folders from the same subpackage.

Each folder entails a particular set of files and images. The latter forms a 
what so called "technology". Moving files from right to left will mix up 
technology descriptions.

I believe it's a bad idea to add it as %doc
> Just add a quick comment in %build stage even if there's no build action.

I thought having marked the package as noarch made it explicit.

[Bug 263121] Review Request: pharosc - VLSI and ASIC Technology Standard Cell Libraries

[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: pharosc - VLSI and ASIC Technology Standard Cell Libraries

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=263121

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-08-30 03:42 EST -------
Okay,
thanks for clarify those points.
However, for %build stage, i think add a comment (such as #nothing to build) is
more explicit than just noarch as buildarch.

well,
This package is APPROVED

[Bug 263121] Review Request: pharosc - VLSI and ASIC Technology Standard Cell Libraries

[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: pharosc - VLSI and ASIC Technology Standard Cell Libraries

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=263121

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|                            |fedora-cvs?

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-08-30 04:36 EST -------
New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: pharosc
Short Description: VLSI and ASIC Technology Standard Cell Libraries
Owners: chitlesh
Branches: FC-6 F-7 Devel
InitialCC:

[Bug 263121] Review Request: pharosc - VLSI and ASIC Technology Standard Cell Libraries

[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: pharosc - VLSI and ASIC Technology Standard Cell Libraries

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=263121

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-cvs?                 |fedora-cvs+

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-08-30 21:38 EST -------
(You could also use %{nil} under %build but a comment is probably better.)

request done

[Bug 263121] Review Request: pharosc - VLSI and ASIC Technology Standard Cell Libraries

[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: pharosc - VLSI and ASIC Technology Standard Cell Libraries

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=263121

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |CLOSED
         Resolution|                            |NEXTRELEASE

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-08-31 10:42 EST -------
(In reply to comment #5)
> (You could also use %{nil} under %build but a comment is probably better.)

I've added the comment.

[Bug 263121] Review Request: pharosc - VLSI and ASIC Technology Standard Cell Libraries

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=263121

Chitlesh GOORAH  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-cvs+                 |fedora-cvs?

--- Comment #7 from Chitlesh GOORAH  2010-07-18 06:30:48 EDT ---
Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: pharosc
Short Description: VLSI and ASIC Technology Standard Cell Libraries
New Branches: EL-5 EL-6
Owners:chitlesh

[Bug 263121] Review Request: pharosc - VLSI and ASIC Technology Standard Cell Libraries

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=263121

Kevin Fenzi  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-cvs?                 |fedora-cvs+

--- Comment #8 from Kevin Fenzi  2010-07-19 00:28:22 EDT ---
cvs done.