[Bug 571458] Review Request: sqlite36 - Library that implements an embeddable SQL database engine

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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=571458

--- Comment #1 from BJ Dierkes <wdierkes at rackspace.com> 2010-09-28 20:58:36 EDT ---
PASS: rpmlint run on every package:

$ rpmlint -i SPECS/sqlite36.spec 
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

$ rpmlint -i
/var/lib/mock/epel-5-x86_64/result/sqlite36-3.6.22-2.el5.x86_64.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

$ rpmlint -i
/var/lib/mock/epel-5-x86_64/result/sqlite36-devel-3.6.22-2.el5.x86_64.rpm 
sqlite36-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.


---

PASS: package is named according to guidelines (exception, multi-version pkg)
PASS: spec file name matches base name (sqlite36.spec)

---

FAIL: package does not fully meet guidelines reqarding Tcl extensions:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Tcl
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Tcl#Naming_Conventions
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Tcl#arch-specific_packages

---

PASS: package is licensed with an approved license (Public Domain)
PASS: spec file is written in American English
PASS: spec file is legible

---

PASS: sources match upstream:

Source0: http://www.sqlite.org/sqlite-%{version}.tar.gz
Source1: http://www.sqlite.org/sqlite_docs_%{docver}.zip

$ curl -s http://www.sqlite.org/sqlite-3.6.22.tar.gz | md5sum ; md5sum
SOURCES/sqlite-3.6.22.tar.gz
a17bd53f1fde11f84adf79c6a1510ce5  -
a17bd53f1fde11f84adf79c6a1510ce5  SOURCES/sqlite-3.6.22.tar.gz

$ curl -s http://www.sqlite.org/sqlite_docs_3_6_22.zip | md5sum ; md5sum
SOURCES/sqlite_docs_3_6_22.zip 
665889e9de50136514aa267173066e96  -
665889e9de50136514aa267173066e96  SOURCES/sqlite_docs_3_6_22.zip

---

PASS: package successfully compiles on atleast one primary arch (el5-x86_64)
PASS: all build dependencies are listed
PASS: spec file handles locales properly (no locale files)
PASS: ldconfig is called in %post/%postun
PASS: package does not bundle copes of system libraries
PASS: package owns all directories it creates (none)
PASS: files are not listed more than once
PASS: permissions on files are set properly
PASS: header files are in -devel
PASS: doc files are in -doc
PASS: no static files to package in -static
PASS: library files are packages under base, .so without suffix under -devel
PASS: -devel package requires base package
PASS: package does not include any .la/.a files
PASS: package does not own files/directories already owned by other packages
PASS: all file names are UTF-8

---

????: license file not included in source, should request upstream include it.
PASS: the package builds in mock
PASS: software functions as expected (calling sqlite36)
????: -doc sub package does not require base package
PASS: pkgconfig files are packages under -devel

---

Summary: Looks mostly good:

FAIL: package does not fully meet guidelines reqarding Tcl extensions.  See:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Tcl
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Tcl#Naming_Conventions
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Tcl#arch-specific_packages

????: License file is not included in source... SHOULD request that upstream
includes it.
????: The -doc subpackage doesn't require the base package. Up to you if you
want to change that, its not a MUST.

-- 
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.