[Bug 226795] Review Request: sdcc - Small Device C Compiler

[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 report.

Summary: Review Request: sdcc - Small Device C Compiler


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226795





------- Additional Comments From trond.danielsen at gmail.com  2007-02-02 04:34 EST -------
(In reply to comment #3)
> Well, blow me down... I've been working the past few days on a SDCC
> package as well but hadn't quite gotten my package to the point of
> being able to post a review request.  A few items based upon what I've
> seen so far (but not a full review yet):
> 
> 1. The "script-without-shebang" errors can be fixed with this:
> 
>     find . -type f -name \*.c | xargs chmod a-x

FIXED

> 
> 2. The zero length file errors can be ignored IMHO, it looks like
>    those files are required for proper functioning, even though they
>    are empty.

Is there a typo in there? Should the zero length files be kept or not?

> 
> 3. What about adding "libgc-devel" to the BR and --enable-libgc to the
>    %configure line?  From what I saw in the documentation this will
>    help improve memory usage.  I don't really know much about SDCC so
>    I don't know if that would mean other tradeoffs.

FIXED.

I have added the neccessary Requires and BuildRequires, and the package build
just fine with --enable-libgc.

> 
> 4. What about adding "latex2html" to the BR and --enable-doc to the
>    %configure file?  This would allow the documentation to be included
>    in the package.

FIXED

For some reason, sdcc requires lyx to build the documentation, and lyx depends
on latex2html.

> 
> 5. The devel package doesn't own "%{_datadir}/sdcc".

Devel package removed, see 7.

> 
> 6. Why remove the emacs files? Why not move them to
>    "%{_datadir}/emacs/site-lisp/". That would make them easier to use
>    if someone wanted to.

FIXED

> 
> 7. The main package isn't very useful without the -devel subpackage.
>    Even though it will cause rpmlint to complain, what about having
>    the main package require the -devel subpackage, or even eliminate
>    the -devel subpackage and have just one package (even though that
>    will cause rpmlint to complain even louder).

I thought about that too, but rpmlint complained, so I created the devel
package. But not I have removed it again, because it makes more sense to keep
everything in one package.

> 
> 8. Is this being packaged in preparation for packaging GNU Radio?
>    That's why I was packaging SDCC, but my GNU Radio package is in
>    even less polished shape than my SDCC package.

It is! There are many things still missing, for instance AVR compiler and
linker. I have stared creating a spec file for avr-binutils, but I did not have
time to finish it. If you want to discuss this with me, you can contact me
either on #gnuradio on irc.freenode.net or on discuss-gnuradio at gnu.org.


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.