I'll upgrade on Tcl 8.5 soon.

RELATED #160441

Reopen -> waiting for new tcl 8.5.

So what's up here?  I guess F7 didn't go to Tcl 8.5 and I'm not sure what's
going to happen with rawhide.  Does this package still need a review?

This package still needs a review because F7 and current Rawhide are still using
Tcl 8.4.

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.

I'm trying to contact upstream to see if there is a better place from where to
download these sources.  I'll post a new spec with all of the fixes once I get a
better download URL.

The static library is a 'stub' library.  Even though it's a static .a library,
it's really used to assist in dynamic linking, even across ABI changes.  See
http://wiki.tcl.tk/285 for more details.

Upstream fixed the access issues to the sources.  Here's an updated package with
the suggested fixes and updated to the latest version.  I've also changed the
name to 'tcl-tcldict' to conform with the pending tcl naming guidelines.

http://www.kobold.org/~wart/fedora/tcl-tcldict-8.5.2-1.fc7.src.rpm
http://www.kobold.org/~wart/fedora/tcl-tcldict.spec

OK, I can grab the source now:
   6683019dcbc56965694104122b4be30d919846d897f5fb43cc94e155b679ee84  
   tclDict-8.5.2.tar.gz
The build dependencies are fine now.
rpmlint is down to the no-documentation complaint.
The permissions are fine now.
Thanks for explaining the .a file.  I guess you could explain it in the spec,
but I suspect this is something that TCL folks would understand implicitly.

APPROVED

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: tcl-tcldict
Short Description: dictionary extension backported from tcl8.5
Owners: wart
Branches: FC-6 F-7

cvs done.

Imported and built on rawhide.  Thanks!