[Bug 796824] Review Request: memchan - In-memory channels for Tcl

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Fri Feb 24 16:36:37 UTC 2012


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=796824

--- Comment #2 from Jon Ciesla <limburgher at gmail.com> 2012-02-24 11:36:37 EST ---
Good:

- rpmlint checks return:

memchan.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/memchan/Memchan2.3.tar.gz <urlopen
error timed out>
The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL.

Likely an artifact of my internet connection.  Verify but probably fine.


memchan.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/mann/memchan.n.gz 7:
warning: macro `BS' not defined
This man page may contain problems that can cause it not to be formatted as
intended.

memchan.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/mann/memchan.n.gz 17:
warning: macro `BE' not defined
This man page may contain problems that can cause it not to be formatted as
intended.

memchan.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/mann/zero.n.gz 7:
warning: macro `BS' not defined
This man page may contain problems that can cause it not to be formatted as
intended.

memchan.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/mann/zero.n.gz 17:
warning: macro `BE' not defined
This man page may contain problems that can cause it not to be formatted as
intended.

memchan.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/mann/fifo.n.gz 7:
warning: macro `BS' not defined
This man page may contain problems that can cause it not to be formatted as
intended.

memchan.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/mann/fifo.n.gz 17:
warning: macro `BE' not defined
This man page may contain problems that can cause it not to be formatted as
intended.

memchan.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/mann/fifo2.n.gz 7:
warning: macro `BS' not defined
This man page may contain problems that can cause it not to be formatted as
intended.

memchan.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/mann/fifo2.n.gz 17:
warning: macro `BE' not defined
This man page may contain problems that can cause it not to be formatted as
intended.

memchan.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/mann/null.n.gz 7:
warning: macro `BS' not defined
This man page may contain problems that can cause it not to be formatted as
intended.

memchan.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/mann/null.n.gz 17:
warning: macro `BE' not defined
This man page may contain problems that can cause it not to be formatted as
intended.

memchan.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/mann/memchanapi.n.gz 7:
warning: macro `BS' not defined
This man page may contain problems that can cause it not to be formatted as
intended.

memchan.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/mann/memchanapi.n.gz 27:
warning: macro `BE' not defined
This man page may contain problems that can cause it not to be formatted as
intended.

Not seen these before, but not a blocker.


memchan-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.

There's just not much there, this is ok.

- package meets naming guidelines
- package meets packaging guidelines
- license ( MIT and Public Domain) OK, text in %doc, matches source
- spec file legible, in am. english
- source matches upstream
- package compiles on devel (x86_64)
- 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
XXXX post/postun ldconfig ok

This is not done.  Is it needed for Tcl solibs?

- devel requires base package n-v-r 

Otherwise, nothing out of order, as expected.

-- 
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.



More information about the package-review mailing list