Spec URL: http://math.ifi.unizh.ch/fedora/spec/ucblogo.spec SRPM URL: http://math.ifi.unizh.ch/fedora/5/i386/SRPMS.gemi/ucblogo-5.5-2.fc5.src.rpm Description: Berkeley Logo (ucblogo) is an interpreter for the Logo programming language. Logo is a computer programming language designed for use by learners, including children. This dialect of Logo features random-access arrays, variable number of inputs to user-defined procedures, various error handling improvements, comments and continuation lines, first-class instruction and expression templates, and macros.
The SRPM link seems wrong; I found http://math.ifi.unizh.ch/fedora/5/i386/SRPMS.gemi/ucblogo-5.5-2.src.rpm which I hope is correct. The build fails due tue to lack of /usr/bin/tex; I think this is part of the texinfo-tex thing. I changed to BR: texinfo-tex and things seem to build fine. I'll proceed with the review assuming that change is made. I wonder if it's a good idea to just drop a file into /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/site-start.d/ without owning that directory. I checked what other packages do and the examples I found seem to own it. Most also seem to drop the .el files into /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp instead of keeping them with the package as ucblogo does, but I don't think this is a problem. It looks like the documentation is about 25% of the installed size of the package. The whole package is only 4MB total so I don't think it warrants a separate documentation subpackage. Review: * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. * source files match upstream: caf68577630645718492fd7d10fd4927 ucblogo-5.5.tar.gz caf68577630645718492fd7d10fd4927 ucblogo-5.5.tar.gz-srpm * latest version is being packaged. O BuildRequires are proper (after changing to texinfo-tex) O package builds in mock (development, x86_64). (after fixing BR:s) * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: ucblogo = 5.5-2.fc6 - /bin/sh /sbin/install-info libtermcap.so.2()(64bit) * no shared libraries are present. * package is not relocatable. ? owns the directories it creates (/usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/site-start.d?) * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * %clean is present. * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. * scriptlets present are sane. * code, not content. * documentation is not so small, but not so large that it needs to be in a separate package. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. * info files are installed * not a GUI app.
(In reply to comment #1) > The SRPM link seems wrong; I found > http://math.ifi.unizh.ch/fedora/5/i386/SRPMS.gemi/ucblogo-5.5-2.src.rpm which I > hope is correct. Yes, it is. > The build fails due tue to lack of /usr/bin/tex; I think this is part of the > texinfo-tex thing. I changed to BR: texinfo-tex and things seem to build fine. Would it be ok to BR: /usr/bin/tex? Then this doesn't have to change in the spec-file between FC5 and FC6. > > I wonder if it's a good idea to just drop a file into > /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/site-start.d/ without owning that directory. I > checked what other packages do and the examples I found seem to own it. Ok. > Most > also seem to drop the .el files into /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp instead of > keeping them with the package as ucblogo does, but I don't think this is a problem. I can move them to site-lisp if you want.
(In reply to comment #2) > Would it be ok to BR: /usr/bin/tex? Then this doesn't have to change in > the spec-file between FC5 and FC6. The current texinfo package in FC4 and FC5 provides texinfo-tex, so there should be no need for a separate spec for those releases. > I can move them to site-lisp if you want. I don't think it makes much difference either way, but if it's easy then it would be more consistent to do it that way.
(In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > Would it be ok to BR: /usr/bin/tex? Then this doesn't have to change in > > the spec-file between FC5 and FC6. > > The current texinfo package in FC4 and FC5 provides texinfo-tex, so there should > be no need for a separate spec for those releases. Ok. > > I can move them to site-lisp if you want. > > I don't think it makes much difference either way, but if it's easy then it > would be more consistent to do it that way. I leave it as it is. http://math.ifi.unizh.ch/fedora/5/i386/SRPMS.gemi/ucblogo-5.5-3.fc5.src.rpm
Builds fine and looks good. APPROVED
Built on FC4, FC5 and FC6. Added entry to owners.list. Thanks for the review.