Bug 1344410 (hoedown)

Summary:	Review Request: hoedown - Standards compliant, fast, secure markdown processing library in C
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Igor Gnatenko <ignatenko>
Component:	Package Review	Assignee:	Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody>
Status:	CLOSED WONTFIX	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	rawhide	CC:	jistone, package-review
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2018-08-22 07:30:29 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:
Bug Blocks:	915043

Description Igor Gnatenko 2016-06-09 15:33:45 UTC

Spec URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/hoedown.spec
SRPM URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/hoedown-3.0.7-1.fc24.src.rpm
Description:
Hoedown is a revived fork of Sundown, the Markdown parser based on the original
code of the Upskirt library by Natacha Porté. Features:
* Fully standards compliant
* Massive extension support
* UTF-8 aware
* Tested & Ready to be used on production
* Customizable renderers
* Optimized for speed
* Zero-dependency
Fedora Account System Username: ignatenkobrain

Comment 1 Josh Stone 2016-06-24 20:38:07 UTC

Preliminary review:

- Shouldn't the library go in a separate subpackage?  The executables won't be needed for library users.  I'd expect one of these layouts:
  - hoedown, hoedown-libs, hoedown-devel
  - hoedown, libhoedown, libhoedown-devel

- The library needs %post/%postun ldconfig

Comment 2 Igor Gnatenko 2016-06-26 09:20:43 UTC

(In reply to Josh Stone from comment #1)
> Preliminary review:
> 
> - Shouldn't the library go in a separate subpackage?  The executables won't
> be needed for library users.  I'd expect one of these layouts:
>   - hoedown, hoedown-libs, hoedown-devel
>   - hoedown, libhoedown, libhoedown-devel
hm, there is only 2 binaries with small size. is it worth to make libs subpackage?
> 
> - The library needs %post/%postun ldconfig
ah yes, forgot about it. Will add it.

Anything else to fix?

Comment 3 Josh Stone 2016-06-27 17:23:21 UTC

> hm, there is only 2 binaries with small size. is it worth to make libs subpackage?

I can't find official guidelines on this, but I prefer to avoid installing things in /bin unnecessarily.  If most people will be using this in library form, as with rustdoc, then they don't need the binaries.

You can take python for precedent -- its main binary is even smaller than these.

> Anything else to fix?

Not that I see.

Comment 4 Igor Gnatenko 2016-06-27 18:14:06 UTC

(In reply to Josh Stone from comment #3)
> > hm, there is only 2 binaries with small size. is it worth to make libs subpackage?
> 
> I can't find official guidelines on this, but I prefer to avoid installing
> things in /bin unnecessarily.  If most people will be using this in library
> form, as with rustdoc, then they don't need the binaries.
There are no guidelines about that, it's up to maintainer if he wants to have libs subpkg. I will make it.
> 
> You can take python for precedent -- its main binary is even smaller than
> these.
> 
> > Anything else to fix?
> 
> Not that I see.

Comment 5 Igor Raits 2018-08-22 07:30:29 UTC

Unfortunately I don't have time to work on these review requests anymore, sorry.