Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: tcl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226479 wart@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?(wart@xxxxxxxxxx) | ------- Additional Comments From wart@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-02-14 17:14 EST ------- Now for the full review: rpmlint output: E: tcl invalid-soname /usr/lib/libtcl8.4.so libtcl8.4.so - I'm inclined to ignore this as this is how Tcl has always named/versioned its shared libraries. Yes, it's awkward, but there are 10 years of Tcl history pressuring it to remain the same. W: tcl-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/tcl-8.4.13/tcl8.4.13/generic/tclThreadAlloc.c - See "MUSTFIX" below for a simple fix. GOOD ==== * Package and spec file named appropriately * BSD license ok, license file included * Spec file legible and in Am. English * No locales * ldconfig called appropriately * Not relocatable * build root cleaned in %clean * Headers and unversioned .so shared libs in -devel subpackage * %doc does not affect runtime * No .desktop file needed MUSTFIX ======= * Mixed use of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot}. Please decide on one or the other and use it consistently in the spec file. * Use %{_libdir} instead of %{_prefix}/%{_lib}. If you really mean %{_prefix}/lib, then be aware that %{_lib} evaluates to lib64 on x86_64 arches. * The package installs a recursive symlink: /usr/lib/tcl8.4 -> ./tcl8.4 This used to be the symlink from /usr/share/tcl8.4 -> /usr/lib/tcl8.4 * Package does not own all directories that it creates. In order to fix, and simplify the %files section, you can remove all of the %{_datadir}/... lines and replace them with a single: %{_datadir}/%{name}%{majorver} * rpmlint debuginfo warning is harmless, but easily fixed by adding to %prep: chmod -x generic/tclThreadAlloc.c * The %define epoch 1 is unnecessary. If you set the Epoch: tag to '1', then rpm will implicitly define the %{epoch} variable. * Source does not match upstream. It appears that the fedora source tarball has 3 extra files: $ diff -r tcl8.4.13.upstream tcl8.4.13.fedora Only in tcl8.4.13.fedora/library/tcltest: constraints.tcl Only in tcl8.4.13.fedora/library/tcltest: files.tcl Only in tcl8.4.13.fedora/library/tcltest: testresults.tcl If these files were added to upstream's tarball after downloading, then I would recommend adding them as extra SourceX: files in the spec and committing them to CVS, instead of modifying the upstream tarball. If, however, upstream removed these files and replaced the upstream tarball without telling anyone, then you should just replace the fedora tarball with the current upstream version. * %{_mandir}/mann/* should really be part of the main package, since it contains man pages for all of the script-level commands. %{_mandir}/man3/* is correctly located in the -devel subpackage. * Is the -html patch really necessary? It doesn't seem to have any effect now that the html docs are installed from the upstream tarball and not generated at build time. * Don't bother installing/packaging the ldAix shell script. It's a wrapper for ld on AIX systems, making it pointless on Fedora. SHOULD ====== * Consider using the recommended BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) * Create a new package + spec file for tcl-html. There are no more source dependencies between tcl and tcl-html, and splitting them into separate spec files will allow you to tag tcl-html as BuildArch: noarch -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review