Bug 169754
Summary: | Review Request: tclxml - XML parsing package for Tcl | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Wart <wart> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | John Mahowald <jpmahowald> |
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | David Lawrence <dkl> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-extras-list |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | kevin:
fedora-cvs+
|
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
URL: | http://tclxml.sourceforge.net | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2005-12-05 18:29:34 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: | |||
Bug Depends On: | 165935 | ||
Bug Blocks: | 163779, 174278 |
Description
Wart
2005-10-03 05:38:44 UTC
Missing BuildRequires: autoconf rpmlint output, excluding tclxml-debuginfo, which has a lot of script-without-shellbangs: E: tclxml script-without-shellbang /usr/share/doc/tclxml-3.0/README W: tclxml wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/tclxml-3.0/README.xml E: tclxml script-without-shellbang /usr/share/doc/tclxml-3.0/ChangeLog W: tclxml-devel summary-ended-with-dot Development files for the tclxml packages. W: tclxml-devel no-documentation W: tclxml-expat summary-ended-with-dot The Tcl xml parser built with the expat xml parser. W: tclxml-expat no-documentation W: tclxml-libxml2 summary-ended-with-dot The Tcl xml parser built with the libxml2 xml parser. W: tclxml-libxml2 no-documentation (In reply to comment #1) > Missing BuildRequires: autoconf > > rpmlint output, excluding tclxml-debuginfo, which has a lot of > script-without-shellbangs: The script-without-shellbang warnings arise because many of the source files have the execute permission bit set in the upstream tarball. I've added a few chmod a-x commands in the build stage to suppress these warnings. > W: tclxml-devel no-documentation > W: tclxml-expat no-documentation > W: tclxml-libxml2 no-documentation There is no documentation specific to these packages, as they (excluding -devel) are just reimplementations of the same API, using different xml parsing libraries. They all depend on the base tclxml package which contains all of the documentation files. I'm inclined to ignore this rpmlint warning. The other rpmlint warnings have been cleaned up, with only the 'no-documentation' warnings remaining. New spec file and source rpm can be found at: http://www.kobold.org/~wart/fedora/tclxml.spec http://www.kobold.org/~wart/fedora/tclxml-3.0-2.src.rpm http://www.kobold.org/~wart/fedora/MD5SUM.asc I made another minor fix to remove the BuildRequires: dos2unix: http://www.kobold.org/~wart/fedora/tclxml.spec http://www.kobold.org/~wart/fedora/tclxml-3.0-3.src.rpm http://www.kobold.org/~wart/fedora/MD5SUM.asc I just noticed that new upstream sources are available. Here are the new package files: http://www.kobold.org/~wart/fedora/MD5SUM.asc http://www.kobold.org/~wart/fedora/tclxml.spec http://www.kobold.org/~wart/fedora/tclxml-3.1-1.src.rpm Good: - rpmlint only complains about the no docs on -devel -expat and -libxml2, ignored as described in comment 2 - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license (BSD-like) OK, text in %doc, matches source - spec file legible - source matches upstream - package compiles on FC4 i386 - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file - devel package ok - no .la files - devel requires base package n-v-r APPROVED Forgot one thing, before building add %post -p /sbin/ldconfig %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig (In reply to comment #6) > %post -p /sbin/ldconfig > %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig No libs are installed in the dynamic linker's default paths, so that's not needed. Is there a good reason to ship the static libraries in -devel? (In reply to comment #7) > (In reply to comment #6) > > %post -p /sbin/ldconfig > > %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig > > No libs are installed in the dynamic linker's default paths, so that's not needed. > > Is there a good reason to ship the static libraries in -devel? One of the packages that I'm still working on is the TclPro wrapper, which wraps Tcl applications and their associated library files into a single application. This wrapper can make use of static libraries for C-based extensions to build a 'big tcl' shell with the various extensions statically linked. This is the only reason I like to include the static libraries. Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: tclxml New Branches: EL-4 EL-5 cvs done. |