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

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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 at ocjtech.us changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jeff at ocjtech.us




------- Additional Comments From jeff at 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.



-- 
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.