Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 192043
Summary: | Review Request: ucblogo - An interpreter for the Logo programming language | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Gérard Milmeister <gemi> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Jason Tibbitts <j> |
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | ||
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2006-06-04 15:29:56 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: | |||
Bug Depends On: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 163779 |
Description
Gérard Milmeister
2006-05-17 00:19:21 UTC
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. |