Bug 230710

For 0.1.10-1:

? Subpackages
  - Please justify to split booldnf "subpackage" from
    boolstuff "main" package. Multilib effect or something?
    ( I don't know about multilib issue well)
    Usually splitting packages only addes complexity and
    confusion.

    Also, if you still want to split booldnf package, please
    reconsider the name of main package (usually, these
    type of package should be named as "-libs").

* Timestamps
  - This software installs some files which are not modified
    during build stage (e.g. header files, man files) 
    and keeping timestamps on these files is recommended.
    For this package, the following method works.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT INSTALL="%{__install} -p"
docdir=%{_datadir}/tmpdocdir
-------------------------------------------------------------------

? File entry
-------------------------------------------------------------------
/usr/include/boolstuff-0.1/boolstuff/BoolExpr.cpp
-------------------------------------------------------------------
  - Why is this file needed? (well, actually this file is called from
    BoolExpr.h, however is it correct?)

? documentation
  - For -devel subpackage:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
%doc examples/example.cpp examples/test-booldnf.pl examples/non-string-nodes.cpp
-------------------------------------------------------------------
    - Any reason you want to remove example/ directory?

===================================================================
!!
   I would appreciate it if you would review any of my ruby modules
   related review requests
   (bug 237380 and bug 237379 , both needed by alexandria < bug 237382 >
    bug 237381 is being reviewed by Chris Weyl)

Version 0.1.11 is out. I fixed the installation targets so that the example
programs do not get installed anymore.

http://sarrazip.com/dev/boolstuff.html

ping?

Sorry Mamoru and Pierre, I am very busy at this time and there was
a security issue in dap-server. I'll try to progress on the week end
but I cannot promise.

About the review of the ruby packages, I am sorry, I don't know
anything about ruby, I wouldn't make a good review ;-(. But tell
me if you have other reviews. Lately I stopped completely 
looking at the 'extras' reviews and focus on 'core' reviews,
but currently I have very little time.

* Subpackages:

I think that booldnf and the library should be separated. 
In general only one should be needed. The library for 
C/C++ and booldnf to use it as a command, for example from 
other languages. It also solves a multilib issue.

Now for the package names, it could also be:

booldnf in boolstuff
library in boolstuff-libs

Just tell what you prefer.

* I can't see what is wrong with
/usr/include/boolstuff-0.1/boolstuff/BoolExpr.cpp?

* Other issues are fixed in

http://www.environnement.ens.fr/perso/dumas/fc-srpms/boolstuff-0.1.11-1.fc7.src.rpm
http://www.environnement.ens.fr/perso/dumas/fc-srpms/boolstuff.spec

- update to 0.1.11
- use a directory for in-source docs

(In reply to comment #5)
> * Subpackages:
> Now for the package names, it could also be:
>
> booldnf in boolstuff
> library in boolstuff-libs
> 
> Just tell what you prefer.

I won't disagree with your naming for this package.

> * I can't see what is wrong with
> /usr/include/boolstuff-0.1/boolstuff/BoolExpr.cpp?

I asked just because I don't usually see files named "*.cpp"
as header files.. But it seems okay for this package.

> * Other issues are fixed in
> boolstuff-0.1.11-1.fc7.src.rpm

Okay!!
--------------------------------------------------
  This package (boolstuff) is accepted by me
--------------------------------------------------

(In reply to comment #4)
> About the review of the ruby packages, I am sorry, I don't know
> anything about ruby, I wouldn't make a good review ;-(. But tell
> me if you have other reviews. 

Well, now 3 ruby modules packages are under review by 
Chitlesh GOORAH. I am still waiting for the following 3 packages:

bug 237382 (alexandria) - blocked by bug 237380 (perhaps
    this will soon be accepted). While alexandira is a 
    GNOME "application", it heavily depends on ruby...
bug 233424 (perl-mecab) and bug 233425 (mecab-java) ..
    perl/java binding for MeCab. these don't depend on ruby

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: boolstuff 
Short Description: Disjunctive Normal Form boolean expression library
Owners: pertusus[ AT ]free.fr
Branches: FC-6 EL-4 EL-5
InitialCC: sarrazip[ AT ]sarrazip.com

I know that obfuscating mail addresses is problematic for those
who create the branches, but otherwise bots could collect the
mail addresses.

Thanks for the review Mamoru, I'll happily review perl-mecab, but 
I can't review java-mecab since I don't know java any better than 
ruby. I'll see if I can review alexandria once the blocker is accepted.

It is a futile effort.  Also note, your address is not obfuscated in the spec files.

Right, bit I could have obfuscated it and there was also Pierre 
address.

Please close when rebuild is done.

Thanks for the review Mamoru, indeed it is built. I had a look 
at alexandria, but I am not sure that I can review it given my
low ruby skills. I'll see what I can do.