[Bug 669010] Review Request: libfap - C port of Ham::APRS::FAP APRS Parser

[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=669010

--- Comment #7 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu> 2011-01-21 14:56:10 EST ---
Yes, it's perfectly OK that rpmlint complain about no-documentation when you
don't actually have any documentation.  You shouldn't invent or duplicate some
just to quite rpmlint.  Sometimes you can decide that some documentation should
go in the -devel package and some in the main package, but that doesn't seem to
be the case here.

Generally for summaries (and especially for something like a library that users
will rarely install on their own anyway) there's not much in indicating what
language the package is written in.  It's certainly not worth arguing over,
though.  Just imagine that you installed some application and it pulled in this
library.  Does the summary provide enough information for you to make a quick
judgment about whether you really want that install to go ahead?

Otherwise this looks OK to me.  However, I just now noticed your message about
smoketest.c.  If at all possible it would be nice to get that built so it could
be run in a %check section.  Just adding

%check
make check

is sufficient and gives a bunch of useful information.

Anyway, with that, this is about done.  I need to look over your pre-reviews
and then I'll push the necessary buttons.

-- 
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.