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: brandy

------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-08-15 13:58 EST -------
Finally my mirror is updated and I can build again.

This still builds fine and indeed all of the documentation and examples are
there.  However, there are a couple of issues:

Proper flags are not pased to the compiler.  I use this hack at the end of %prep
to get them passed properly; the resulting package still seems to work 

perl -pi -e "s/^(CFLAGS.*=.*)/\1 %{optflags}/" makefile

I wonder if the examples would be more proper as documentation.  This would be
more in line with what I've seen in the past, but I don't think it's a blocker.

* source files match upstream:
   0aedef51e76cf07533d82fe4dcd89efa  brandy_119.tgz
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is correct.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.  License text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper (none!)
X compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
* debuginfo package looks complete (even though the compiler flags are wrong, -g
is still passed)
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   brandy = 1.0.19-2.fc6
   (no non-glibc or rpm dependencies)
* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.  Manual testing shows that
things at least install and run.  (My BASIC is not the best after a couple of
decades of disuse.)
* no shared libraries are present.
* package is not relocatable.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no scriptlets present.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no libtool .la droppings.

Configure bugmail:
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

Fedora-package-review mailing list

Reply via email to