Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: tclreadline - GNU Readline extension for Tcl/Tk
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=579925
Summary: Review Request: tclreadline - GNU Readline extension for Tcl/Tk Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: redhat-bugzilla@linuxnetz.de QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/tclreadline.spec SRPM URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/tclreadline-2.1.0-1.src.rpm Description: The tclreadline package makes the GNU Readline library available for interactive tcl shells. This includes history expansion and file/command completion. Command completion for all tcl/tk commands is provided and commmand completers for user defined commands can be easily added. Tclreadline can also be used for tcl scripts which want to use a shell like input interface.
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=579925
--- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2010-11-25 09:49:59 EST --- I don't know much about tcl and we don't get many tcl packages submitted, but we do have a guidelines page. I suppose that anyone who was interested in tcl would have reviewed this already, so I'll go ahead and take care of it.
The package does not meet the naming guidelines, which require that tcl packages have a "tcl-" prefix. You can have Provides: tclreadline if you want.
2.1.0 still seems to be the latest version. In fact, upstream seems to be thoroughly dead; the last commit was something like nine years ago. Perhaps you and the Debian folks could get together and fork the package. You've already changed the API of the package (with the prompt2 stuff) so it's not much of a stretch. Otherwise, who is going to ensure compatibility with future tcl development?
Can you comment on the 20+ rpmlint complaints of the form tclreadline.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libtclreadline-2.1.0.so Tcl_DoOneEvent
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=579925
Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status Whiteboard| |Sta
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=579925
Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status Whiteboard|Sta |StalledSubmitter
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=579925
--- Comment #2 from Robert Scheck redhat-bugzilla@linuxnetz.de 2010-12-02 18:31:02 EST --- Regarding the naming guidelines: I was too much focussed on how the packaging itself is done, sorry. I've no idea regarding the rpmlint complaints so far, I will have to investigate here, but:
I won't fork tclreadline, because I'm using it to rarely and I'm not really familiar with tcl programming. The patches applied are mostly from Debian, so I would like to keep everything how it is, because there are some further tclreadline users out there. If that makes the review from your point of view a no-go, please let me know.
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=579925
Robert Scheck redhat-bugzilla@linuxnetz.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tibbs@math.uh.edu Summary|Review Request: tclreadline |Review Request: |- GNU Readline extension |tcl-tclreadline - GNU |for Tcl/Tk |Readline extension for | |Tcl/Tk Status Whiteboard|StalledSubmitter |
--- Comment #3 from Robert Scheck redhat-bugzilla@linuxnetz.de 2010-12-31 22:48:29 EST --- Spec URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/tcl-tclreadline.spec SRPM URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/tcl-tclreadline-2.1.0-2.src.rpm
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=579925
--- Comment #4 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2011-01-06 14:41:53 EST --- I guess the primary question is why you would want to push unmaintained software into the distribution when by your own admission you aren't sufficiently familiar with the software to maintain it if problems arise. For example, what happens if Fedora updates to a readline version which is no longer ABI compatible?
As to the package itself, I think it looks fine assuming you intend to push this to EL4 or EL5; otherwise you can drop several bits.
I'm not sure why you apply memuse.patch; did our tcl become threaded at some point? (I guess it doesn't really hurt anything, but generally you patch to fix something that's actually broken.)
prompt2.patch seems too actually change the API of the library. Are you really sure you didn't intend to fork this software? Debian policies may permit this kind of thing but it's really a bad idea.
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=579925
Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status Whiteboard| |StalledSubmitter
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=579925
Robert Scheck redhat-bugzilla@linuxnetz.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status Whiteboard|StalledSubmitter |
--- Comment #5 from Robert Scheck redhat-bugzilla@linuxnetz.de 2011-02-12 21:23:43 EST --- There are Fedora users out there that expect tclreadline. And no, not every Fedora users wants to get a contributor. That may has to do with new target audience of Fedora...
In case Fedora updates to a API incompatible version (I think, you meant API rather ABI), I'll try to solve things, otherwise the package gets orphaned.
The package is intended to be pushed to EPEL branches.
The tcl in Fedora was from time to time threaded by accident, more or less each time the maintainer on Red Hat side switched and the new one wanted to give a try to the threaded tcl.
I'm not going to create a new upstream, even it's "in" at Fedora nowadys to fork any software. From my point of view, the prompt2.patch changes API, but it only adds something new & optional. Thus backward compatibility is given.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla