[Bug 475410] Review Request: symmetrica - A Collection of Routines for Solving Symmetric Groups

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475410


Jerry James <loganjerry at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |loganjerry at gmail.com
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |loganjerry at gmail.com
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




--- Comment #1 from Jerry James <loganjerry at gmail.com>  2008-12-11 11:22:10 EDT ---
I'll take this.  I'll do a full review shortly, but here are some preliminary
notes.  First, I sent email to upstream asking them to clarify the license
issue.  I'll let you know how they respond.  Second, I'm not comfortable with
the way this package is compiled.  Ideally it would be built as a shared
library in a main package, with the header files in a -devel subpackage.  Is
there some reason why this cannot be done?  That would also let you turn
debuginfo generation back on, another issue that bothers me.  Also, the spec
file as currently written is compiling the example/test code into the library,
too.  That should not be done.  The example/test code could be included as
documentation or, if there is enough of it, made into a separate -examples
subpackage.

I'm also concerned about the .doc extension on the documentation files.  That
is usually used for Microsoft Word documents, but these are plain text.  Worse,
they contain information that should be in man pages.  Do you have any kind of
relationship with upstream?  Can you talk them into making real man pages?  If
they have not got the expertise but will accept contributions, I can generate
the man pages for them.  Note that I will not block the review on this issue,
as it is an upstream problem.

Another upstream issue: if they want help building a proper Makefile that
generates a shared library, I can help with that, too.

Compiling produces a really alarming list of GCC warnings.  I see warnings
about uninitialized variables, control reaching the end of non-void functions,
ambiguous else clauses, unused static functions and variables, incorrect
pointer types being passed to functions, incorrect printf format directives,
etc.  Does this code work reliably for you?

This looks like a very interesting package!  Thanks for submitting it.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.