Spec URL: http://ojuba.org/oji/SPECS/otcl.spec SRPM URL: http://ojuba.org/oji/SRPMS/otcl-1.14-1.oji.fc19.src.rpm Description: OTcl, short for MIT Object Tcl, is an extension to Tcl/Tk for object-oriented programming. Some of OTcl's features as compared to alternatives are: - designed to be dynamically extensible, like Tcl, from the ground up. - builds on Tcl syntax and concepts rather than importing another language. - compact yet powerful object programming system. - fairly portable implementation (2000 lines of C, without core hacks). Fedora Account System Username: moceap
Koji build task: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6344536
- Fix path of includes. Spec URL: http://ojuba.org/oji/SPECS/otcl.spec SRPM URL: http://ojuba.org/oji/SRPMS/otcl-1.14-2.oji.fc19.src.rpm https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6346370
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages - Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if present. Note: Package has .a files: otcl. Illegal package name: otcl. Does not provide -static: otcl. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#StaticLibraries ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck: Unknown or generated -------------------- otcl-1.14/otcl.c otcl-1.14/otcl.h otcl-1.14/otclAppInit.c otcl-1.14/otkAppInit.c ---> Tell upstream. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/b4(gcc- debuginfo, glibc-debuginfo), /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin(gcc-debuginfo, sqlite-debuginfo, glibc-debuginfo-common, ncurses-debuginfo, lnav- debuginfo, bzip2-debuginfo, pcre-debuginfo, openssl-debuginfo), /usr/lib/debug/.build-id(readline-debuginfo, sqlite-debuginfo, glibc- debuginfo-common, gcc-base-debuginfo, gcc-debuginfo, glibc-debuginfo, zlib-debuginfo, ncurses-debuginfo, lnav-debuginfo, bzip2-debuginfo, pcre- debuginfo, openssl-debuginfo), /usr/lib/debug/.dwz(readline-debuginfo, sqlite-debuginfo, zlib-debuginfo, ncurses-debuginfo, bzip2-debuginfo, pcre-debuginfo, openssl-debuginfo), /usr/lib/debug(readline-debuginfo, sqlite-debuginfo, glibc-debuginfo-common, gcc-base-debuginfo, gcc- debuginfo, glibc-debuginfo, zlib-debuginfo, ncurses-debuginfo, lnav- debuginfo, bzip2-debuginfo, filesystem, pcre-debuginfo, openssl- debuginfo), /usr/lib/debug/usr(gcc-debuginfo, sqlite-debuginfo, glibc- debuginfo-common, gcc-base-debuginfo, glibc-debuginfo, zlib-debuginfo, ncurses-debuginfo, lnav-debuginfo, bzip2-debuginfo, filesystem, pcre- debuginfo), /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/73(gcc-debuginfo), /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib(readline-debuginfo, sqlite-debuginfo, gcc-base- debuginfo, gcc-debuginfo, glibc-debuginfo, zlib-debuginfo, ncurses- debuginfo, bzip2-debuginfo, pcre-debuginfo, openssl-debuginfo), /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/eb(glibc-debuginfo) [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 296960 bytes in 9 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in otcl-devel , otcl-docs ---> Please add _isa in -devel sub. [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: otcl-1.14-2.fc21.i686.rpm otcl-devel-1.14-2.fc21.noarch.rpm otcl-docs-1.14-2.fc21.noarch.rpm otcl-1.14-2.fc21.src.rpm otcl.i686: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/.dwz/otcl-1.14-2.fc21.i386 otcl.i686: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/otclsh.debug otcl.i686: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/otclsh.debug otcl.i686: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/owish.debug otcl.i686: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/owish.debug otcl.i686: W: no-soname /usr/lib/libotcl.so otcl.i686: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib/libotcl.so.debug otcl.i686: E: shared-lib-without-dependency-information /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib/libotcl.so.debug otcl.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/debug/.dwz otcl.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/debug/.dwz otcl.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/debug/.build-id otcl.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/debug/.build-id otcl.i686: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libotcl.a otcl.i686: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/lib/libotcl.a otcl.i686: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib/libotcl.so.debug otcl.i686: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib/libotcl.so.debug ---> debuginfo can't be found, Why did you mark -devel as noarch: BuildArch: noarch??? otcl.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary otclsh otcl.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary owish otcl-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation otcl.src: W: strange-permission otcl-src-1.14.tar.gz 0640L otcl.src:73: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 73, tab: line 9) 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 16 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint otcl otcl-devel otcl-docs otcl.i686: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/.dwz/otcl-1.14-2.fc21.i386 otcl.i686: W: ldd-failed /usr/lib/debug/.dwz/otcl-1.14-2.fc21.i386 otcl.i686: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/otclsh.debug otcl.i686: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/otclsh.debug otcl.i686: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/owish.debug otcl.i686: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/owish.debug otcl.i686: W: no-soname /usr/lib/libotcl.so otcl.i686: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libotcl.so Tcl_AppendResult otcl.i686: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libotcl.so Tcl_UpVar2 otcl.i686: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libotcl.so Tcl_DeleteHashTable otcl.i686: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libotcl.so Tcl_NewStringObj otcl.i686: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libotcl.so Tcl_GetString otcl.i686: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libotcl.so Tcl_StringMatch otcl.i686: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libotcl.so Tcl_SetVar2 otcl.i686: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libotcl.so Tcl_GetCommandName otcl.i686: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libotcl.so Tcl_DeleteCommandFromToken otcl.i686: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libotcl.so Tcl_Free otcl.i686: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libotcl.so Tcl_InitHashTable otcl.i686: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libotcl.so Tcl_ResetResult otcl.i686: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libotcl.so TclFreeObj otcl.i686: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libotcl.so Tcl_ProcObjCmd otcl.i686: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libotcl.so Tcl_Eval otcl.i686: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libotcl.so Tcl_GetVar2 otcl.i686: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libotcl.so Tcl_FirstHashEntry otcl.i686: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libotcl.so Tcl_SplitList otcl.i686: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libotcl.so Tcl_NextHashEntry otcl.i686: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libotcl.so Tcl_DeleteCommand otcl.i686: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libotcl.so Tcl_SetResult otcl.i686: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libotcl.so Tcl_UnsetVar2 otcl.i686: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libotcl.so Tcl_FindCommand otcl.i686: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libotcl.so Tcl_DeleteHashEntry otcl.i686: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libotcl.so Tcl_AddObjErrorInfo otcl.i686: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libotcl.so Tcl_CreateCommand otcl.i686: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libotcl.so Tcl_AppendElement otcl.i686: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libotcl.so Tcl_GetCommandInfo otcl.i686: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libotcl.so Tcl_VarEval otcl.i686: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libotcl.so Tcl_Alloc otcl.i686: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libotcl.so Tcl_CreateNamespace otcl.i686: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib/libotcl.so.debug otcl.i686: E: shared-lib-without-dependency-information /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib/libotcl.so.debug otcl.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/debug/.dwz otcl.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/debug/.dwz otcl.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/debug/.build-id otcl.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/debug/.build-id otcl.i686: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libotcl.a otcl.i686: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/lib/libotcl.a otcl.i686: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib/libotcl.so.debug otcl.i686: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib/libotcl.so.debug otcl.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary otclsh otcl.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary owish otcl-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 46 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- otcl (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libX11.so.6 libc.so.6 libdl.so.2 libm.so.6 libnsl.so.1 libtcl8.5.so libtk8.5.so rtld(GNU_HASH) otcl-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): otcl otcl-docs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): otcl Provides -------- otcl: libotcl.so otcl otcl(x86-32) otcl-devel: otcl-devel otcl-docs: otcl-docs Unversioned so-files -------------------- otcl: /usr/lib/libotcl.so Source checksums ---------------- http://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/otcl-tclcl/OTcl/1.14/otcl-src-1.14.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c644aed47ccd7e082ad47388dc8a2412a0eceacbe81d8574e560a797b782b969 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c644aed47ccd7e082ad47388dc8a2412a0eceacbe81d8574e560a797b782b969 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -rvn otcl-1.14-2.oji.fc19.src.rpm Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: BATCH, EPEL5, EXARCH, DISTTAG -------------------- SPEC part: 1. Please avoid this kind of style, weird, no appropriate reason to leave it there: %description docs %common_desc Please improve it, don't be lazy. 2. %configure --prefix=%_prefix Please eval the %configure macro, default should cover the option. 3. Request a license from upstream. 4. Why keep .a files?
1. Please avoid this kind of style, weird, no appropriate reason to leave it there: >>> Did you mean to re-write the description for subpackages !! 3. Request a license from upstream. >>> I'll 4. Why keep .a files? >>> Make install doing that ======================================= - library included into -devel. - General Tweaks. - Fix versions of requires in -devel -docs. ======================================= Spec URL: http://ojuba.org/oji/SPECS/otcl.spec SRPM URL: http://ojuba.org/oji/SRPMS/otcl-1.14-3.oji.fc19.src.rpm
1. What's the difficulty of can't write description in the field but using a macro to accomplish? 2. -devel %description just contains one line is enough: This package contains libraries and header files for developing applications that use %{name}. 3. I don't understand why you hacked so many makefile rules there, the tweak is just nonsense if you use DESTDIR in %install. And what you've done will break the ld results in unversioned libs. 4. Please name doc subpackage as -doc but not -docs(followed by most of packages in Fedora), also entries below have mistakes: %package docs Summary: MIT Object Tcl document files Group: Development/Languages Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} BuildArch: noarch %description docs %common_desc The package contains the document files for Otcl. -1. Summary: MIT Object Tcl document files You'd better change it to: Summary: Documentation files for %{name} -2. Group: Development/Languages What? Shouldn't they be: Group: Documentation ? Or you can remove all group tag since Fedora doesn't need it anymore. -3. Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} Well, this doc package is noarch, you shouldn't add %_isa macro here. -4. %description docs %common_desc Please change to sth like(you can improve the %{name} but no need to write down main package's description again here): %description doc This package contains documentation files for %{name}. 5. static libs should be removed per: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries_2 6. License file is not a problem, but others are.
1. What's the difficulty of can't write description in the field but using a macro to accomplish? >> Doing that to write desciption just one time :) . 3. I don't understand why you hacked so many makefile rules there, the tweak is just nonsense if you use DESTDIR in %install. And what you've done will break the ld results in unversioned libs. >> Builtin install faild at building by packaging, So I do that manually. ======================== - Fix description of all packages. - Rename -docs to -doc - Change summary and group of -doc. - Fix version of -doc requires. - Remove static lib. ======================== Spec URL: http://ojuba.org/oji/SPECS/otcl.spec SRPM URL: http://ojuba.org/oji/SRPMS/otcl-1.14-4.oji.fc19.src.rpm
Please take your time. Don't rush. [...] Taking a look at the -devel package: $ rpmls -p otcl-devel-1.14-4.fc20.x86_64.rpm -rw-r--r-- /usr/include/otcl.h -rwxr-xr-x /usr/lib64/libotcl.so 1) What happens if a programs compiles with otcl.h and links with libotcl.so? 2) What happens if one wants to load this shared lib into Tcl? 3) /usr/include/otcl.h wants to include tcl.h, so currently there are missing dependencies. [...] $ rpm -qpR otcl-doc-1.14-4.fc20.noarch.rpm |grep -v ^rpm otcl = 1.14-4.fc20 $ rpmls -p otcl-doc-1.14-4.fc20.noarch.rpm drwxr-xr-x /usr/share/doc/otcl-doc -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/otcl-doc/autoload.html -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/otcl-doc/capi.html -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/otcl-doc/class.html -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/otcl-doc/object.html -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/otcl-doc/otcl-paper.ps.gz -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/otcl-doc/tutorial.html Obviously, this -doc package does not need to depend on the base package, since the included HTML and PS files can be displayed with any capable viewer.
As another request, please ensure that the dependent review request bug 1047702 always builds with the offered otcl packages. Currently it doesn't.
- Add tcl-devel as -devel require. - Release -doc from base require. ------------------------ Spec URL: http://ojuba.org/oji/SPECS/otcl.spec SRPM URL: http://ojuba.org/oji/SRPMS/otcl-1.14-5.fc20.src.rpm
Perhaps we misunderstand eachother. What I've tried to point out in comment 7 is that the packaging is broken (at least highly questionable). Think about the two questions in that comment. I'm not a Tcl expert, but as a hint: Placing a runtime shared lib in a -devel package is wrong. Let's not follow packaging guidelines blindly, but aim at packaging this thing correctly.
In my First try to package Otcl, I put lib into base package. But I review Tcl and Tk packages. Both these packages similar to Otcl and Tclcl, they packaged in this method. So I did like them. To my self I prefer packed lib into libotcl package, but headers is so small so it isn't differ. Regards.
So, if both tcl and tk packages do include their shared libs in the base package, why don't you do that also with otcl? [...] And tclcl (in bug 1047702) still doesn't build: … checking for init.tcl... /usr/share/tcl8.5 checking for http.tcl... /usr/share/tcl8.5/http1.0 checking Tcl http.tcl library... yes checking for tclsh8.5.14... no checking for tclsh8.5... /bin/tclsh8.5 checking for tk.h... -I/usr/include checking for libtk8.5... -L/usr/lib64 -ltk8.5 checking for tk.tcl... /usr/share/tk8.5 checking for otcl.h... -I/usr/include checking for libotcl1.14... no configure: error: Installation of otcl seems incomplete or can't be found automatically. Please correct the problem by telling configure where otcl is using the argument --with-otcl=/path/to/package (perhaps after installing it), or the package is not required, disable it with --with-otcl=no.
> So, if both tcl and tk packages do include their shared libs in the base package, why don't you do that also with otcl? No they include it in -devel part. > And tclcl (in bug 1047702) still doesn't build: It works ! checking for tk.tcl... /usr/share/tk8.5 checking for otcl.h... -I/usr/include checking for libotcl1.14... -L/usr/lib -lotcl checking for X11 header files checking for X11 library archive checking for XOpenDisplay in -lX11... yes checking for XShmAttach in -lXext... yes checking for zlib.h... -I/usr/include checking for libz1.1.3... -L/usr/lib -lz No explicit static compilation flag; setting V_STATIC to "" checking for dlopen in -ldl... yes checking system version (for system-dependent libraries)... Linux-3.12.10-300.fc20.i686 checking for unistd.h... (cached) yes checking for a BSD-compatible install... /usr/bin/install
> No they include it in -devel part. No, they don't. libtcl8.5.so is part of package "tcl", libtk8.5.so is part of package "tk". > It works ! > checking for libotcl1.14... -L/usr/lib -lotcl Note that /usr/lib is not x86_64, so this will need to be examined further to figure out which is broken for x86_64. otcl or tclcl?
A koji scratch is needed: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6524991
- Compatible with Fedora 21. - Improving lib locations. Spec: http://ojuba.org/test/otcl.spec Srpm: http://ojuba.org/test/otcl-1.14-6.oj35.src.rpm http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7755010
- Tweaks Spec: http://ojuba.org/test/otcl.spec Srpm: http://ojuba.org/test/otcl-1.14-7.oj35.src.rpm
This review has now been assigned for over 10 months with no action. Will you be able to start the review in the next 2 days? If not, please release it.
Christopher, now that you're back, will you take back this review?
I'll pick up the review. Unfortunately it still does not build in rawhide / amd64: ... gcc -shared -o libotcl.so otcl.o /usr/bin/ld: otcl.o: relocation R_X86_64_PC32 against symbol `OTclAsObject' can not be used when making a shared object; recompile with -fPIC /usr/bin/ld: final link failed: Bad value collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status Makefile:102: recipe for target 'libotcl.so' failed make: *** [libotcl.so] Error 1 It builds and runs fine on i386 though. Regarding the license: there's a standard MIT license in file headers. So for simplicity you can use License: MIT. I think the packaging is OK, apart from the build issue.
(In reply to Mosaab Alzoubi from comment #17) > - Tweaks > > Spec: http://ojuba.org/test/otcl.spec > Srpm: http://ojuba.org/test/otcl-1.14-7.oj35.src.rpm These links to a page in arabic, and they don't seems to point to the spec file.