Missing BuildRequires: autoconf

rpmlint output, excluding tclxml-debuginfo, which has a lot of
script-without-shellbangs:

E: tclxml script-without-shellbang /usr/share/doc/tclxml-3.0/README
W: tclxml wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/tclxml-3.0/README.xml
E: tclxml script-without-shellbang /usr/share/doc/tclxml-3.0/ChangeLog
W: tclxml-devel summary-ended-with-dot Development files for the tclxml packages.
W: tclxml-devel no-documentation
W: tclxml-expat summary-ended-with-dot The Tcl xml parser built with the expat
xml parser.
W: tclxml-expat no-documentation
W: tclxml-libxml2 summary-ended-with-dot The Tcl xml parser built with the
libxml2 xml parser.
W: tclxml-libxml2 no-documentation

(In reply to comment #1)
> Missing BuildRequires: autoconf
> 
> rpmlint output, excluding tclxml-debuginfo, which has a lot of
> script-without-shellbangs:

The script-without-shellbang warnings arise because many of the source files
have the execute permission bit set in the upstream tarball.  I've added a few
chmod a-x commands in the build stage to suppress these warnings.

> W: tclxml-devel no-documentation
> W: tclxml-expat no-documentation
> W: tclxml-libxml2 no-documentation

There is no documentation specific to these packages, as they (excluding -devel)
are just reimplementations of the same API, using different xml parsing
libraries.  They all depend on the base tclxml package which contains all of the
documentation files.  I'm inclined to ignore this rpmlint warning.

The other rpmlint warnings have been cleaned up, with only the
'no-documentation' warnings remaining.

New spec file and source rpm can be found at:

http://www.kobold.org/~wart/fedora/tclxml.spec
http://www.kobold.org/~wart/fedora/tclxml-3.0-2.src.rpm
http://www.kobold.org/~wart/fedora/MD5SUM.asc

I made another minor fix to remove the BuildRequires: dos2unix:

http://www.kobold.org/~wart/fedora/tclxml.spec
http://www.kobold.org/~wart/fedora/tclxml-3.0-3.src.rpm
http://www.kobold.org/~wart/fedora/MD5SUM.asc

I just noticed that new upstream sources are available.  Here are the new
package files:

http://www.kobold.org/~wart/fedora/MD5SUM.asc
http://www.kobold.org/~wart/fedora/tclxml.spec
http://www.kobold.org/~wart/fedora/tclxml-3.1-1.src.rpm

Good:

- rpmlint only complains about the no docs on -devel -expat and -libxml2,
ignored as described in comment 2

- package meets naming guidelines
- package meets packaging guidelines
- license (BSD-like) OK, text in %doc, matches source
- spec file legible
- source matches upstream
- package compiles on FC4 i386
- no missing BR
- no unnecessary BR
- no locales
- not relocatable
- owns all directories that it creates
- no duplicate files
- permissions ok
- %clean ok
- macro use consistent
- code, not content
- no need for -docs
- nothing in %doc affects runtime
- no need for .desktop file

- devel package ok
- no .la files
- devel requires base package n-v-r 

APPROVED

Forgot one thing, before building add

%post -p /sbin/ldconfig
%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig

(In reply to comment #6)
> %post -p /sbin/ldconfig
> %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig

No libs are installed in the dynamic linker's default paths, so that's not needed.

Is there a good reason to ship the static libraries in -devel?

(In reply to comment #7)
> (In reply to comment #6)
> > %post -p /sbin/ldconfig
> > %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig
> 
> No libs are installed in the dynamic linker's default paths, so that's not needed.
> 
> Is there a good reason to ship the static libraries in -devel?

One of the packages that I'm still working on is the TclPro wrapper, which wraps
Tcl applications and their associated library files into a single application. 
This wrapper can make use of static libraries for C-based extensions to build a
'big tcl' shell with the various extensions statically linked.  This is the only
reason I like to include the static libraries.

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: tclxml
New Branches: EL-4 EL-5

cvs done.