Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: tcldict - Tcl dictionary extensiuon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217735
tibbs(a)math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |tibbs(a)math.uh.edu
Flag| |fedora-review?
------- Additional Comments From tibbs(a)math.uh.edu 2007-06-09 17:18 EST -------
It took me a bit to figure out why this refused to build due to the requirement
for tcl-devel < 8.5. Turns out that tcl grew an epoch. Which is kind of
unfortunate, since tcl-devel-0:8.5 < tcl-devel-1:8.5, but there's no way around
it. In any case, that build dependency needs to be on tcp-devel < 1:8.5.
Also, there's a static library. Could you add a note as to why it's needed?
Note that I know zilch about tcl extensions. Normally I'd say it needs to be in
-static, but I don't know what this library would be used for.
I can't seem to get to upstream at the moment, so I'll have to save the source
comparison for later.
rpmlint has a couple of complaints. This one is OK:
W: tcldict-devel no-documentation
Generally static libraries aren't executable. Why our dynamic libs are
executable and our static libs aren't, I don't know.
W: tcldict-devel spurious-executable-perm
/usr/lib64/dict8.5.1/libdictstub8.5.1.a
Review:
? can't check upstream source.
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
* description is OK.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
? can't check upstream for latest version.
X BuildRequires needs epoch on tcl-devel
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock after fixing deps (development, x86_64)
* package installs properly
* debuginfo package looks complete.
X rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane.
* %check is present and all tests pass:
Tests ended at Sat Jun 09 15:53:32 EDT 2007
all.tcl: Total 189 Passed 188 Skipped 1 Failed 0
* no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
X executable .a file probably shouldn't be.
* no scriptlets present.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* headers are in -devel subpackage.
* no pkgconfig files.
X static libraries present, in -devel package.
* no libtool .la files.
--
Configure bugmail:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.