tcsh617 is new package that provides tcsh 6.17.00 with some patches from RHEL-6. This package conflicts with the default tcsh package that provides tcsh 6.14.00 functionality. Spec URL, SRPM URL: Both will follow after creating few other dependent bugzillas because of the patches. Description: Tcsh is an enhanced but completely compatible version of csh, the C shell. Tcsh is a command language interpreter which can be used both as an interactive login shell and as a shell script command processor. Tcsh includes a command line editor, programmable word completion, spelling correction, a history mechanism, job control and a C language like syntax.
I have applied patches from RHEL-6 to keep new tcsh617 synchronized with tcsh-6.17.el6. Now we shall be able to have just one QA slot for both packages. RHEL-6 ERRATA bugzillas cloned into: bug 688170 bug 688173 bug 688175
Spec URL: http://vvitek.fedorapeople.org/tcsh.spec SRPM URL: http://vvitek.fedorapeople.org/tcsh617-6.17-1.el6.src.rpm Víťo, could you please review this package asap?
Spec URL: http://vvitek.fedorapeople.org/tcsh617.spec (The same content but with the correct filename.)
OK source files match upstream: $ sha256sum tcsh-6.17.00.tar.gz* 575266122bc2bc351c84a7f858020c0e6b6f95a64ad4de3ce95e340f57e4a9a9 tcsh-6.17.00.tar.gz 575266122bc2bc351c84a7f858020c0e6b6f95a64ad4de3ce95e340f57e4a9a9 tcsh-6.17.00.tar.gz.orig OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines. OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. The spec file look fine, just two comments: - Please use %global instead of %define, see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25global_preferred_over_.25define - Buildroot tag is no longer required, see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag OK dist tag is present. OK license field matches the actual license. BAD license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. License text (file named 'Copyright' in tarball) is not included in package. OK latest version is being packaged. OK BuildRequires are proper. OK compiler flags are appropriate. OK package builds in mock (Rawhide/i686). OK debuginfo package looks complete. OK rpmlint is silent. (Two warnings, nothing serious.) OK final provides and requires look sane. N/A %check is present and all tests pass. N/A shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths with proper scriptlets OK owns the directories it creates. OK doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. OK no duplicates in %files. OK file permissions are appropriate. OK correct scriptlets present. OK code, not content. OK documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. N/A headers in -devel N/A pkgconfig files in -devel OK no libtool .la droppings. OK not a GUI app. OK obsoletes and provides of the obsoleted package are valid
> - Please use %global instead of %define, see: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25global_preferred_over_.25define > > - Buildroot tag is no longer required, see: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag This is package for RHEL-5, so I will leave these unchanged. > BAD license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. > > License text (file named 'Copyright' in tarball) is not included in package. Fixed. (This actually means a bug in RHEL-6 tcsh package.) Spec URL: http://vvitek.fedorapeople.org/tcsh617.spec SRPM URL: http://vvitek.fedorapeople.org/tcsh617-6.17-1.el5.src.rpm
Looks fine now.