Spec URL: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/judy/judy.spec SRPM URL: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/judy/judy-1.0.4-1.fc9.src.rpm Description: Judy is a C library that implements a dynamic array. Empty Judy arrays are declared with null pointers. A Judy array consumes memory only when populated yet can grow to take advantage of all available memory. Judy's key benefits are: scalability, performance, memory efficiency, and ease of use. Judy arrays are designed to grow without tuning into the peta-element range, scaling near O(log-base-256) -- 1 more RAM access at 256 X population.
First impressions: - The patch 'judy-1.0.4-smp.patch' isn't applied - There's a comment in the .spec file mentioning '# _smp_mflags not works, reporte at BZ #2129019'. Bug #2129019 isn't known at this bugzilla. Where can it be found and is it still open? - There's a typo in the .spec file: %post -p /sbn/ldconfig. This should be /sbin/ldconfig - The %files contains files using wildcards. While this is valid, it is recommended to use the full filenames for readability. Full review coming soon
*** Bug 465897 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Ok, so I missed this one and made my own: Spec URL: http://cra.fedorapeople.org/Judy/Judy.spec SRPM URL: http://cra.fedorapeople.org/Judy/Judy-1.0.4-1.fc9.src.rpm Some differences I note: - I named mine "Judy" not "judy". This matches the upstream tarball name and hence doesn't require %setup -n Judy-%{version}. I believe this is desirable according to the Naming Guidelines: "General Naming When naming a package, the name should match the upstream tarball or project name from which this software came. In some cases, this naming choice may be more complicated. If this package has been packaged by other distributions/packagers in the past, then you should try to match their name for consistency. In any case, try to use your best judgement, and other developers will help in the final decision." - "%configure --disable-static" to prevent building static libraries altogether--better than just deleting them afterwards. - I packaged the HTML versions of the docs. Would you consider my changes and like to co-maintain this package once it gets in?
Okay, I'll wait with the full review until a agreement has been reached about these two versions of this package
@Charles, OK, you may going forward with you package and I will close this review request. Of corse, I am ready to co-maintain your package aver the review may be finished. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 465897 ***