Spec URL: http://us-la.cicku.me/g800.spec SRPM URL: http://us-la.cicku.me/g800-0.10.5-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: g800 is a emulator of SHARP PC-G800 series including SHARP PC-G850/G815. It also can emulate PC-E200. This software emulates the IOCS call, you can run it without the ROM image of a real machine. If there is a ROM image of a real machine, you can use the BASIC language to programme on it. Fedora Account System Username: cicku
I intend to write a manpage of this software and send it to upstream as the current manual is written in Japanese.
an informal review: from rpmlint: g800.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US programme -> programmer, programmed, program me http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Summary_and_description "programme" is a noun (in British English) and should be "program" when used as a verb (also American English should be used as per the link above). from a review of the spec file: in %setup sed -i -e 's|-s|%{?__global_ldflags}|g' \ -e 's|-O3|%{optflags}|g' \ -e 's|-Os|%{optflags}|g' \ Makefile sed -i -e 's|$(EXAMPLE_DOC)|%{_pkgdocdir}/g800config|g' README.Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment I would take this to mean that the above should include comments. Also I believe that patch is generally preferred over sed from reading other review comments.
(In reply to David Nichols from comment #2) > an informal review: > > from rpmlint: > > g800.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US programme -> > programmer, programmed, program me > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Summary_and_description > > "programme" is a noun (in British English) and should be "program" when used > as a verb (also American English should be used as per the link above). Thanks, I will correct it later. > from a review of the spec file: > > in %setup > sed -i -e 's|-s|%{?__global_ldflags}|g' \ > -e 's|-O3|%{optflags}|g' \ > -e 's|-Os|%{optflags}|g' \ > Makefile > sed -i -e 's|$(EXAMPLE_DOC)|%{_pkgdocdir}/g800config|g' README.Fedora > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging: > Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment I don't think upstream will accept such changes, as the compiler flags, linker flags can be modified by downstream to match the needs/guidelines[1]. I replaced all O3 with optflags and dropped the strip flag just because I want to make the debuginfo package work. For that readme file, my initial thought was I should use asciidoc to generate one written by myself, but I don't have time now. I don't want to start an argument here about the patch style. [1]---http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #3) > (In reply to David Nichols from comment #2) > > from a review of the spec file: > > > > in %setup > > sed -i -e 's|-s|%{?__global_ldflags}|g' \ > > -e 's|-O3|%{optflags}|g' \ > > -e 's|-Os|%{optflags}|g' \ > > Makefile > > sed -i -e 's|$(EXAMPLE_DOC)|%{_pkgdocdir}/g800config|g' README.Fedora > > > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging: > > Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment > > I don't think upstream will accept such changes, as the compiler flags, > linker flags can be modified by downstream to match the needs/guidelines[1]. > I replaced all O3 with optflags and dropped the strip flag just because I > want to make the debuginfo package work. I think that your modifications are fine, but maybe you want to add a comment in the spec as per the link above. > For that readme file, my initial thought was I should use asciidoc to > generate one written by myself, but I don't have time now. > > I don't want to start an argument here about the patch style. > > [1]---http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags You won't get any arguments out of me, just trying to help.
This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag. You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group. Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned and will be closed. Thank you for your patience.
This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script. The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month. As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it.