[Bug 452559] Review Request: zfuzz - Z fuzz - Type-checker and LaTeX style for Z spec language

[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: zfuzz - Z fuzz - Type-checker and LaTeX style for Z spec language


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452559





------- Additional Comments From dwheeler at dwheeler.com  2008-06-25 18:14 EST -------
I've responded to comment 8 - the new release (number 3) is at:
http://www.dwheeler.com/zfuzz-20070911-3.fc9.src.rpm
http://www.dwheeler.com/zfuzz-20070911-3.fc9.i386.rpm
http://www.dwheeler.com/zfuzz.spec

This new zfuzz.spec file is rpmlint-clean, just like the previous
ones were. I also did:
 koji build --scratch dist-f9 zfuzz-20070911-3.fc9.src.rpm
and all architectures successfully completed (5 done, 0 failed)
with this release (3) on Fedora 9.

Here's how I handled each comment in comment 8:

>* I think it is better to use sed instead of perl for one-liners

Ok, done (with sed -i).  BuildRequires: perl removed, because of this.

>* gcc is not needed in BuildRequires (see the exceptions in guidelines)

It's not NEEDED, but it is PERMITTED, so I thought it'd be better to be
explicit.  But I don't really care, so I've removed it.

>* use the virtual provides like tex(tex) and tex(latex) instead of
>  explicitely depending on texlive

Ah! Good point!  Done.

>* coments are good, but some of your comments are, in my opinion, (much)
>  too long. For example the one about not splitting the package could be
># the package contains few glyphs, but separating a font subpackages would
># seemed unnecessary and confusing since it should be the only package using
># the fonts
>
>* also some comments are redundant. For example you comment twice that
>  mf and pk files are installed such that they don't have to be recreated.
>
>* paraphrasing the whole INSTALL file is not useful either.

Okay, shortened comments significantly.

>* you could split out the latex part, in tex-zfuzz.

True, but as I commented, I saw little point in doing so. The type-checker and
latex style are meant to be used together, and are combined in upstream anyway.
If that's wrong, they could be split later, but I doubt anyone will want it that
way.

>* the %description is much too long.

Ok, shortened.

>* regarding the .pdf it is better to have the source and be able to
>  rebuild from source in fedora. But even if it cannot be regenerated
>  it is better to package it.
>  There is no license issue because it is BSD, and it can be allowed in
>  fedora because it is content.

Good!  That was my exactly my thinking as well, which is why I packaged it this way.

>* The %build section has too much comments. Most of your code is
>  self-documented

Ok, comments removed/shortened.

>* I think that a patch for adding the DESTDIR would be better than the
>  substitution and I hope that upstream would accept it.

Done.  I would hope that too, but I don't control upstream :-).
I _will_ send the patches (and the spec file) to upstream once it's
passed review.

>* I don't think that CFLAGS can be defined when make is launched.

Sure it can, it works just fine.  CFLAGS is just yet another make variable. 
Easy test: if you remove the CFLAGS text in this .spec file, the options passed
to gcc change radically.



-- 
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.