[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





------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl  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.


-- 
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.