[Bug 719152] Review Request: gappalib-coq - Coq support library for gappa

[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=719152

--- Comment #6 from Jerry James <loganjerry at gmail.com> 2011-10-31 13:55:50 EDT ---
Thanks for the review!

(In reply to comment #5)
> NOK[1]: Please use %{buildroot} instead of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. That is just for
> usabilty as it is easier to read if there is just one macro style used. See
> Package guidelines: "Mixing the two styles, while valid, is bad from a QA and
> usability point of view, and should not be done in Fedora packages."

You're talking about this:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Using_.25.7Bbuildroot.7D_and_.25.7Boptflags.7D_vs_.24RPM_BUILD_ROOT_and_.24RPM_OPT_FLAGS

But I am not mixing the two styles discussed in that section.  There is no
instance of either %{buildroot} or %{optflags} in this spec file, therefore
this is a straight $RPM_BUILD_ROOT + $RPM_OPT_FLAGS style.  I don't understand
what you are objecting to.

> NOK[2]: Can *.v files be considered as header files? As far as I understand
> they more than source files. I think the devel subpackage should be considered
> as "Install this package, if you want to develope a application/library that
> uses the base package". E.g. the devel package for an library written in C only
> contains the header files, because they are required to link the library. If
> someone wants the source files not for developing, but for just looking at it,
> he is required to install the source package.

The .v files are for human consumption only.  They are not necessary for any
computerized task.  It is possible to compile applications that use
gappalib-coq without needing the .v files.  In that regard, they're kind of
like the various emacs-foo-el packages; nothing in Fedora requires the contents
of those packages, but they are useful for humans to look at.

If -devel isn't a good name for this subpackage, then how about -source?

> As Thomas Spura already mentioned on his review for flocq you should consider
> to doing a packaging draft and send it to fpc to clarify this.

Yes, I will do this.  It will probably take me a few days to complete.  Thanks.

-- 
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.