[Bug 459872] Review Request: asn1c - Free, open source compiler of ASN.1 specifications into C source code

[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=459872


Mads Kiilerich <mads at kiilerich.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |mads at kiilerich.com




--- Comment #9 from Mads Kiilerich <mads at kiilerich.com>  2009-10-27 18:55:12 EDT ---
A wannabee-packager-review:

rpmlint output:
asn1c.i686: W: file-not-utf8
/usr/share/doc/asn1c-0.9.21/samples/sample.source.LDAP3/sample-LDAPMessage-1.ber
(misunderstood binary file)
asn1c.i686: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/asn1c/... 103 times
(NOT include files but input to asn1.c for generating c code)

Package and spec name fine.

This is a fine and simple spec, legible and in American English AFAICS.
I think it is a bit odd to mangle source files in %install so a folder can be
specified as %doc in %files. Perhaps it could be moved to %build ... or ask
upstream to change it.

License "BSD" is OK; COPYING and most source contains a slightly truncated
"FreeBSD BSD Variant (2 clause BSD)" and some even more free snippets and rfc
texts. Upstream seems to be aware of potential licensing issues with the
samples - they are carefully avoided.

Source URL is fine. There are no build requirements, and it mock builds and
installs on rawhide/f12.
The sample source/makefiles in docs fails, partly because they are meant to be
run from the source tree, partly because of the packaging and moving things
around.
And there is a bug in asn1c-quick.pdf: TestModule.asn1 doesn't work - it should
probably be SEQUENCE instead of SET.
But finally I managed to run asn1c and it seemed to work and generate something
which seemed OK. But I don't have any real-world use case.

There are no locales and no libraries and thus also no system libraries. Not
relocatable, and creates and owns files/directories in usual locations and they
are only listed once and with proper permissions. %files is however very
explicit and verbose about %{_datadir}/%{name}.

%clean is fine, and macros are used consistently. The package contains fine
permissible code with supporting files. The fine documentation - and especially
the samples - takes up several times more space than the rest. But this is a
development package, so I think it is fine to keep it all in one package. 

No header files (except the data), no static libs, no pkgconfig, no libraries
and especially no libtool archives, and no GUI. 

%install is fine and installs files with pure ascii names.


Conclusion:
Try to get the samples working - or at least make sure that they not are broken
by the packaging.
Consider simplifying %{_datadir}/%{name} in %files

-- 
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.