[Bug 497001] Review Request: auto-nng - A software for analysis and classification of data, using AI NN

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=497001


Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |tibbs at math.uh.edu
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




--- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu>  2009-07-10 21:51:43 EDT ---
Builds find and rpmlint is silent.

There is a simple test program included; is there any reason not to run it?  I
see that you had commented out a build dependency on ruby, so perhaps you
intended this.  I guess it takes a while (almost exactly 3 minutes on my 2.4GHz
8-core Nehalem machine) but I doubt it will need to be built often.

Could you add the sentence
 "auto-nng is a software for analysis and classification of data, using 
  artificial neuronal networks."
to the beginning of %description?  It makes a little more sense that way.

You use both $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot} forms.  You can use which ever
you prefer, but you must be consistent.

The compiler flags are not correct.  You need to pass %{optflags} (or
$RPM_OPT_FLAGS if you prefer) to the compiler.  It looks like you just need to
pass CFLAGS to the Makefile, but you may need to patch out the '-O3' call
unless you can demonstrate that it helps.

The debuginfo package is broken because -g isn't passed to the compiler.

* source files match upstream.  sha256sum:           
   1beff6a1ff8bdafcd945627d4d2a6087bb3ada0c34f1071e6b8ea842d30d9fc3  
   auto-nng.v1.5.tar.gz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
X specfile does not use macros consistently.
* summary is OK.                                                              
? description could use a tweak.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
X compiler flags are not correct.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
X debuginfo package is mostly empty.
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   auto-nng = 1.5-1.fc12
   auto-nng(x86-64) = 1.5-1.fc12
  =
   (none)

X %check is not present, but there's a test suite.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no generically named files
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no static libraries.
* no libtool .la files.

The package review process needs reviewers!  If you haven't done any package
reviews recently, please consider doing one.

-- 
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.