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@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review