[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 #7 from Markus Mayer <LotharLutz at gmx.de> 2011-10-31 14:16:11 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> 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.
> 

Yes, you are right. I have missinterpreted this section a bit.

> > 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.

emacs-foo-el packages exists for two reasons (source:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Emacs):
- It is often the case that byte compiling the elisp source for one add-on will
require the presence of the elisp source for another add-on package at build
time for example. 

- When debugging a problem with an (X)Emacs package, the Elisp debugger can
look up the relevant code or symbol definition in the source lisp file if
present. 

If a user just wants to source to look at it, it is already possible using
'yumdownloader --source packagename'.

Maybe this can help you finding your way.


Regards,

Markus

-- 
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.