Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: ctags
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225669
bugzilla@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora
terjeros@phys.ntnu.no changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |terjeros@phys.ntnu.no Flag| |fedora-review?
------- Additional Comments From terjeros@phys.ntnu.no 2007-07-02 16:13 EST ------- + rpmlint W: ctags summary-ended-with-dot A C programming language indexing and/or cross-reference tool. E: ctags tag-not-utf8 %changelog E: ctags non-utf8-spec-file ctags.spec W: ctags summary-ended-with-dot A C programming language indexing and/or cross-reference tool. E: ctags tag-not-utf8 %changelog E: ctags-debuginfo tag-not-utf8 %changelog
Comment: * fix utf-8 with iconv(1) * Both Summary and description should be reworked, they don't match the package as of today.
+ naming : ok
+ guidelines * changelog is 10 years old (sic!), could be a be shorter? * disttag is missing * source url is wrong, see:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#head-e27982f18a3bfd26b5b6e... * I prefer this buildroot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) * add %{?_smp_mflags} to make * preserve timestamp on man files (cp -p/install -p) * don't use %makeinstall
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-fcaf3e6fcbd51194a5d0... * don't shiop INSTALL the rest seems ok.
+ License: ok + American English: ok, however as noted the summary and description is outdated and should be fixed. + legible: ok + src: md54sum: 9026a6c6950751bc4fd1be37e8a2070f : ok + build: ok (with correct build opts) + buildreq: ok + dirs and dups: ok + I prefer %defattr(...) as %defattr(-, root, root, -) + clean: ok + debuginfo: ok Then a issue maybe outside the scope of this review, I really like to see etags enabled and included. Perhaps in a ctags-etags subpackage like this:
%package etags Summary: Exuberant Ctags for emacs tag format Group: Development/Tools Requires: ctags = %{version}-%{release} %description This package will generate tags in a format which GNU Emacs understand, it's a alternativ implementation of the GNU etags program. Note: some command line options is not compatible with GNU etags.
Then change %configure line to include --enable-etags .
There are several other /usr/bin/etags coming from emacs and xemacs, hence you must use alternatives to setup /usr/bin/etags.ctags as alternativ. I can help with the details if you want, it goes something like this:
move files (after install):
mv /usr/bin/etags to /usr/bin/etags.ctags mv /usr/share/man/man1/etags.1 /usr/share/man/man1/etags.ctags.1
set up alternatives with slave (in %post and %preun):
alternatives --install /usr/bin/etags etags /usr/bin/etags.ctags 20 \ --slave /usr/share/man/man1/etags.1.gz etags-etagsman /usr/share/man/man1/etags.ctags.1.gz
alternatives --remove etags /usr/bin/etags.ctags
With low prio as 20, xemacs and emacs should ne affected. and included the files with
%files etags %defattr(-, root, root, -) %doc COPYING %{_bindir}/etags.ctags %{_mandir}/man1/etags*