[Bug 226402] Merge Review: SDL

[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: Merge Review: SDL


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226402


j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl  2007-02-09 10:20 EST -------
I'm behind a windows machine ATM, so no full review, but a few items to fix and 
a few questions to get started:

SHOULDFIX items:
* replace "--x-includes=/usr/include --x-libraries=/usr/%{_lib}"
  with "--x-includes=%{_includedir} --x-libraries=%{_libdir}
* BuildRequires: nasm should be: %ifarch %{ix86}, I doubt ppc owners will
  be amused when they try to rebuild SDL from srpm for some reason and then
  need to install nasm.

questions:
* Why this? : "export tagname=CC"
* Why add -O3 is there any bench mark proof this is benificial?
* Since you now pass "--x-includes=/usr/include --x-libraries=/usr/%{_lib}",
  to work around configure's X-detection, do you still need:
  BuildRequires imake and libXt-devel?
* Does devel really Requires libXt-devel?

I must say all in all a pretty good specfile, I've seen much worse (both in FE 
as in FC).

An important question when moving on with this is what todo with current bz 
tickets against SDL. Quite a few of them seem legitimate and not all that hard 
to fix. I don't know however if open bz tickets should be concidered blockers 
for the review. I see that someone has made one of them block this ticket, but 
that can be removed. AFAIK there are no rules for this, we could ask the 
mailinglist but that usually leads to much ado about nothing. In my opninion we 
should try to fix as many BZ's against SDL as possible during this review, but 
not let them block the review, agreed?

Which brings me to the next subject one of the main reasons why I've decided to 
review SDL and not just any package is because I'm very active in packaging 
games and gaming related libraries (allegro (ask jnovy), CLanLib 0.6 and 0.8, 
plib) and as an experiment in co-maintainer ship between (former) FE and FC 
maintainers I would like to become a co-maintainer of SDL.

Judging from the current open BZ tickets against SDL, of which most seem easy 
to fix, currently other work has higher priorities then SDL, and thus you could 
use a hand. I don't know howto shape this co-maintainership for now I'll try to 
take a look at some of the open BZ tickets and write fixes for those, notice 
btw that bug 217389 already contains fix I've reviewed the fix and it looks 
good to me.

Unfortunately I currently don't have internet access at home so I'll only be 
able to communicate about this mon, wed, thu and fri.



-- 
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.