[Bug 226479] Merge Review: tcl

[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 report.

Summary: Merge Review: tcl


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226479


wart at kobold.org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEEDINFO                    |ASSIGNED
               Flag|needinfo?(wart at kobold.org)  |




------- Additional Comments From wart at kobold.org  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.