[Bug 678774] Review Request: libscs - Software Carry-Save Multiple-Precision Library

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678774

Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich <krege at land.ru> changed:

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

--- Comment #5 from Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich <krege at land.ru> 2011-02-20 06:23:34 EST ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Because it is required to get a macro defined in gmp.h, which consequently
> makes mpfr_out_str available.

Hm. The order of #include influences on the result. Greate.

> Since the HTML documentation is the only thing packaged as %doc it only adds on
> more meaningless level of hierarchy.

Ok.

> They provide valuable run-time data specific to the host system the application
> is running on, therefore they should be shipped with the library afaik.

Ok.

======== Review ===========================
+ rpmlint was run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces.
+ The package was named according to the  Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matchs the base package %{name}. 
+ The package meets the  Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license LGPLv2+.
+ The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
+ File, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in
%doc.
+ The spec file must is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The sources used to build the package matchs the upstream source.
+ The package is successfully compiled and build into binary rpms on at least
one primary architecture.
+ All build dependencies must are listed in BuildRequires.
+ Binary RPM package calls ldconfig in %post and %postun.
+ Packages do NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
+ A package owns all directories that it creates.
+ A package do not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ Package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissable content.
* No localization.
* No large documentaion. 
+ Everything included as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application.
+ Header files are in a -devel package.
* No static libraries. 
+ Library files that end in .so (without suffix) are in a -devel package.
+ Devel packages requires the base package in proper way.
+ Packages do NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
* Not a GUI application. 
+ Packages do not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
+ All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

Approved.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.