Looking for people to trade reviews with.

Michael E Brown Michael_E_Brown at dell.com
Fri Jul 13 21:11:21 UTC 2007

On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 02:54:18PM -0500, Michael E Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 04:11:02PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > Hi All,
> > 
> > I've got a number of packager for which its close to impossible to find a 
> > reviewer. I'm looking for people todo a 100% "technical" review of this, 
> > iow just check if it matches the guidelines. I'm afraid that there is 
> > no-one with the expertise to also check if things like the used configure 
> > flags etc are sane. However I've poured a ton of time in to this. For 
> > researching how to best do this amongst other things, so I'm pretty sure 
> > everything is ok. You will just have to trust me on my blue ^H^H^H^H brown 
> > eyes for that. I've tested these packages to compile a variety of software 
> > for the involved hardware and the resulting binaries worked fine.
> > 
> > Here is the list:
> > * avr-libc
> >   C library for use with GCC on Atmel AVR microcontrollers
> >   https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241279
> Since I have been patiently waiting for this, I will be happy to do a
> review on it.
> I dont have any packages that I need reviewed in turn, but if something
> comes up, I'll let you know. :)


There were a couple of MUST items in the review guidelines that merit

- MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
  --> rpmlint also complains about this
- MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
  --> rpmlint also complains about this

This package is a cross-compiled libc. Does it fall under these
guidelines? I dont see any specific guidance for cross-building tools.

There were two other items I found that should be easily fixable. Havent
quite finished the review yet, though (only got through review
guidelines for today). Still need to run through the naming guidelines
and packaging guidelines.

More information about the Fedora-maintainers mailing list