[Bug 431250] Review Request: librep - An embeddable LISP environment

[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: librep -  An embeddable LISP environment


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431250


pertusus at free.fr changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |pertusus at free.fr




------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr  2008-07-12 05:56 EST -------
The checkout instructions should include a date or a -r switch
such that the same tarble is constructed even if there has been
some later changes in the svn.

The release is not right, it should be
Release:        0.3.%{snapshot}%{?dist}

You should not use gzip on the info files, it is done automatically.

A dot is missing at the end of the -devel %description.

The --with-malloc-alignment=8 for specific arches is very scary and 
doesn't scale well. Isn't it possible to achieve portability? 

I suggest not having -f for the 2 first rm, such that you notice when the
files are not installed anymore. It should stay for
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_infodir}/dir since it may or may not be created depending on
the situation. This would lead to

rm $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}/*.la
rm $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}/rep/%{version}/%{_host}/*.la
rm -f $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_infodir}/dir

There is a missing
Requires(post): /sbin/ldconfig

Also a missing Requires: automake for the devel package, or, alternatively
owning %{_datadir}/aclocal/.

A suggestion, I think it is nice to have a trailing / for directories
in %files to see that they are directories. It is just a personal preference,
though. This would lead to

%{_datadir}/rep/

and

%{_libdir}/rep/

Since there are emacs files, you should certainly follow
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Emacs
and also shouldn't the file also be byte-compiled?

There are these rpmbuild warnings:
warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/librep.so.9
warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/librep.so.9.4.0

There are still some .la files in -devel, like
/usr/lib/rep/0.17/i686-pc-linux-gnu/rep/data/tables.la

Aren't the files in /usr/lib/rep/0.17/i686-pc-linux-gnu/ needed for
rep at runtime?


It seems to me that %{_libdir}/rep/ is unowned. 

-- 
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, or are watching someone who is.