[Bug 501924] Review Request: mingw32-tcl - MinGW Windows Tool Command Language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=501924 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|8.5.7-5.fc11.1 |8.5.7-5.fc10.1 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 501924] Review Request: mingw32-tcl - MinGW Windows Tool Command Language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=501924 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System 2009-05-25 17:19:41 EDT --- mingw32-tcl-8.5.7-5.fc10.1 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 501924] Review Request: mingw32-tcl - MinGW Windows Tool Command Language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=501924 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||8.5.7-5.fc11.1 Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 501924] Review Request: mingw32-tcl - MinGW Windows Tool Command Language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=501924 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System 2009-05-25 17:17:02 EDT --- mingw32-tcl-8.5.7-5.fc11.1 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 501924] Review Request: mingw32-tcl - MinGW Windows Tool Command Language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=501924 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System 2009-05-23 09:00:22 EDT --- mingw32-tcl-8.5.7-5.fc10.1 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mingw32-tcl-8.5.7-5.fc10.1 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 501924] Review Request: mingw32-tcl - MinGW Windows Tool Command Language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=501924 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System 2009-05-23 08:55:07 EDT --- mingw32-tcl-8.5.7-5.fc11.1 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mingw32-tcl-8.5.7-5.fc11.1 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 501924] Review Request: mingw32-tcl - MinGW Windows Tool Command Language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=501924 Kevin Fenzi changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #8 from Kevin Fenzi 2009-05-23 01:42:37 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 501924] Review Request: mingw32-tcl - MinGW Windows Tool Command Language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=501924 Thomas Sailer changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Thomas Sailer 2009-05-22 10:10:17 EDT --- Thanks! New Package CVS Request === Package Name: mingw32-tcl Short Description: MinGW Windows Tool Command Language Owners: sailer rjones Branches: F-10 F-11 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 501924] Review Request: mingw32-tcl - MinGW Windows Tool Command Language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=501924
Erik van Pienbroek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Erik van Pienbroek
2009-05-22 09:56:12 EDT ---
$ rpmlint mingw32-tcl.spec
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint mingw32-tcl-8.5.7-2.fc11.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint mingw32-tcl-8.5.7-2.fc11.noarch.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmquery --requires mingw32-tcl
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
mingw32-filesystem >= 50
mingw32-runtime
mingw32(kernel32.dll)
mingw32(msvcrt.dll)
mingw32(tcl85.dll)
mingw32(user32.dll)
$ rpmquery --provides mingw32-tcl
mingw32(tcl85.dll)
mingw32(tclpip85.dll)
mingw32(tcldde13.dll)
mingw32(tclreg12.dll)
mingw32-tcl = 8.5.7-2.fc11
$ md5sum tcl8.5.7-src.tar.gz
f70ad8f78b5e4a9f792fe101f22b125f tcl8.5.7-src.tar.gz
$ curl http://kent.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/tcl/tcl8.5.7-src.tar.gz
--quiet | md5sum
f70ad8f78b5e4a9f792fe101f22b125f -
+ OK
! Needs to be looked into
/ Not applicable
* Overridden by MinGW guidelines
[+] Files are installed in /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw
[+] BuildRequires: mingw32-filesystem >= xx is in the .spec file
[+] Requires are OK
[+] BuildArch: noarch
[+] No man pages or info files
[+] default strip and objdump commands are overridden with mingw32 specific
ones
[+] rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the
review
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption on Package Naming Guidelines
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+] MUST: 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 must be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL.
[+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one supported architecture.
[+] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines;
inclusion of those as B ildRequires is optional.
[/] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[*] MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just
symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in
%post and %postun.
[/] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package.
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
[+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} ( or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ).
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines .
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[/] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application.
[*] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[/] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[/] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
(for directory ownership and usability).
[*] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in
a -devel package.
[/] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
[/] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, th
[Bug 501924] Review Request: mingw32-tcl - MinGW Windows Tool Command Language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=501924 --- Comment #5 from Thomas Sailer 2009-05-22 06:18:08 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) I removed the %check section now, entirely. > Have you tried compiling TCL-based applications (or other libraries) against > this package to test whether the compiler can find the .dll.a file? (Normally > libtool takes care of that, but as TCL isn't libtool based it's best to verify > this) Yes. It links and basically works. Updated: Spec URL: http://sailer.fedorapeople.org/mingw32-tcl.spec SRPM URL: http://sailer.fedorapeople.org/mingw32-tcl-8.5.7-2.fc11.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 501924] Review Request: mingw32-tcl - MinGW Windows Tool Command Language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=501924
--- Comment #4 from Erik van Pienbroek
2009-05-21 14:38:17 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Thanks for taking! That was quick!
I'm waiting for somebody to review my review requests, so it's best to do other
reviews in return :)
> > For readability, you might want to move this piece of code to the top of the
> > .spec file:
> > # don't run "make test" by default
> > %{?_without_check: %define _without_check 0}
> > %{!?_without_check: %define _without_check 1}
>
> This is again from the native spec file. I kept it there to minimize the
> differences. So the %check section could probably completely go...
Yeah, I've also seen it in the native spec file. However, I still think such
pieces of code need to be near the top of .spec files as it helps people who
are manually rebuilding the package to find out there's an option to enable the
testsuite. Right now, it's hidden somewhere in the .spec file and easily
overlooked.
> > Is the rename of the import libraries from .a to .dll.a really necessary?
> > AFAIK, this is only needed for libtool based libraries (which tcl isn't)
>
> I don't think the renaming is strictly necessary. I did it to make it extra
> clear that the .a files are implibs, not static libraries...
Have you tried compiling TCL-based applications (or other libraries) against
this package to test whether the compiler can find the .dll.a file? (Normally
libtool takes care of that, but as TCL isn't libtool based it's best to verify
this)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 501924] Review Request: mingw32-tcl - MinGW Windows Tool Command Language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=501924
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Sailer 2009-05-21
11:16:32 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Thanks for taking! That was quick!
> This one is quite hard to read, due to the frequent use of macros. However, I
> don't think it can be done any other way, so I'll do my best to read through
> them.
I modified the native tcl package spec file.
> The %files list contains some redundant entries:
Fixed.
> For readability, you might want to move this piece of code to the top of the
> .spec file:
> # don't run "make test" by default
> %{?_without_check: %define _without_check 0}
> %{!?_without_check: %define _without_check 1}
This is again from the native spec file. I kept it there to minimize the
differences. So the %check section could probably completely go...
> Is the rename of the import libraries from .a to .dll.a really necessary?
> AFAIK, this is only needed for libtool based libraries (which tcl isn't)
I don't think the renaming is strictly necessary. I did it to make it extra
clear that the .a files are implibs, not static libraries...
> The native tcl package is now at version 8.5.7. You might want to update to
> that version too. See
Woohoo. Just when you think you're up to date :)
But there does not seem to be a successful build of 8.5.7 in koji. So I'm ahead
now :)
Updated:
Spec URL: http://sailer.fedorapeople.org/mingw32-tcl.spec
SRPM URL: http://sailer.fedorapeople.org/mingw32-tcl-8.5.7-1.fc11.src.rpm
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 501924] Review Request: mingw32-tcl - MinGW Windows Tool Command Language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=501924
Erik van Pienbroek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Erik van Pienbroek
2009-05-21 09:22:54 EDT ---
This one is quite hard to read, due to the frequent use of macros. However, I
don't think it can be done any other way, so I'll do my best to read through
them.
The %files list contains some redundant entries:
%dir %{_mingw32_libdir}/%{name1}%{majorver}
%dir %{_mingw32_libdir}/dde*
%dir %{_mingw32_libdir}/reg*
%{_mingw32_libdir}/%{name1}%{majorver}/*
%{_mingw32_libdir}/dde*/*
%{_mingw32_libdir}/reg*/*
These can be simplified to:
%{_mingw32_libdir}/%{name1}%{majorver}/
%{_mingw32_libdir}/dde*/
%{_mingw32_libdir}/reg*/
For readability, you might want to move this piece of code to the top of the
.spec file:
# don't run "make test" by default
%{?_without_check: %define _without_check 0}
%{!?_without_check: %define _without_check 1}
Is the rename of the import libraries from .a to .dll.a really necessary?
AFAIK, this is only needed for libtool based libraries (which tcl isn't)
The native tcl package is now at version 8.5.7. You might want to update to
that version too. See
http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/tcl/devel/tcl.spec?view=log for the
complete list of changes
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 501924] Review Request: mingw32-tcl - MinGW Windows Tool Command Language
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=501924 --- Comment #1 from Thomas Sailer 2009-05-21 07:04:07 EDT --- Description should be: MinGW Windows Tool Command Language -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
