11:44 a.m.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1380105
Bug ID: 1380105
Summary: Review Request: mingw-libdb - MinGW build of The
Berkeley DB database library
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
Severity: medium
Priority: medium
Assignee: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org
Reporter: ngompa13(a)gmail.com
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL:
http://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/ngompa/mingw-libdb/mingw-l...
SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/ngompa/mingw-libdb/fedora...
Description:
The Berkeley DB Database is a programmatic toolkit that provides
database support for applications.
Fedora Account System Username: ngompa
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
12:26 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 1380105] Review Request:
mingw-libdb - MinGW build of The Berkeley DB database library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1380105
--- Comment #1 from Neal Gompa <ngompa13(a)gmail.com> ---
Spec URL:
http://kinginuyasha.enanocms.org/downloads/mingw-libdb-5.3.28-2.fc24.src.rpm
SRPM URL: http://kinginuyasha.enanocms.org/downloads/mingw-libdb.spec
Updated SRPM and Spec to use %license for storing license files.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
11:44 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 1380105] Review Request:
mingw-libdb - MinGW build of The Berkeley DB database library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1380105
--- Comment #2 from Neal Gompa <ngompa13(a)gmail.com> ---
Wow, I got them backwards...
Spec URL: http://kinginuyasha.enanocms.org/downloads/mingw-libdb.spec
SRPM URL:
http://kinginuyasha.enanocms.org/downloads/mingw-libdb-5.3.28-2.fc24.src.rpm
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
10:05 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 1380105] Review Request:
mingw-libdb - MinGW build of The Berkeley DB database library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1380105
Yaakov Selkowitz <yselkowi(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |yselkowi(a)redhat.com
--- Comment #3 from Yaakov Selkowitz <yselkowi(a)redhat.com> ---
Are the EXEs really useful here?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
6:26 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 1380105] Review Request:
mingw-libdb - MinGW build of The Berkeley DB database library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1380105
--- Comment #4 from Neal Gompa <ngompa13(a)gmail.com> ---
(In reply to Yaakov Selkowitz from comment #3)
Are the EXEs really useful here?
If someone wants to bundle the tools with the application they are building, or
they are designing something that will need them, it's good to have them
available so they can be pulled in. There's no reason *not* to provide them.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
10:49 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 1380105] Review Request:
mingw-libdb - MinGW build of The Berkeley DB database library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1380105
--- Comment #5 from Yaakov Selkowitz <yselkowi(a)redhat.com> ---
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #4)
(In reply to Yaakov Selkowitz from comment #3)
> Are the EXEs really useful here?
If someone wants to bundle the tools with the application they are building,
or they are designing something that will need them, it's good to have them
available so they can be pulled in. There's no reason *not* to provide them.
The packaging guidelines[1] say otherwise.
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:MinGW#Executables_.28EXEs.29
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
8:17 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 1380105] Review Request:
mingw-libdb - MinGW build of The Berkeley DB database library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1380105
Neal Gompa <ngompa13(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alias| |mingw-libdb
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
8:17 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 1380105] Review Request:
mingw-libdb - MinGW build of The Berkeley DB database library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1380105
Neal Gompa <ngompa13(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
See Also| |https://bugzilla.redhat.com
| |/show_bug.cgi?id=885919
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
10:07 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 1380105] Review Request:
mingw-libdb - MinGW build of The Berkeley DB database library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1380105
Thomas Sailer <t.sailer(a)alumni.ethz.ch> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |t.sailer(a)alumni.ethz.ch
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Sailer <t.sailer(a)alumni.ethz.ch> ---
The issues IMO are:
- preserve (header) timestamps
- tab vs. space in .spec
- summaries ("for Win32 for Win64 for Win64")
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== MUST items =====
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[-]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic:
[x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: mingw32-libdb-5.3.28-2.fc24.noarch.rpm
mingw32-libdb-static-5.3.28-2.fc24.noarch.rpm
mingw64-libdb-5.3.28-2.fc24.noarch.rpm
mingw64-libdb-static-5.3.28-2.fc24.noarch.rpm
mingw32-libdb-debuginfo-5.3.28-2.fc24.noarch.rpm
mingw64-libdb-debuginfo-5.3.28-2.fc24.noarch.rpm
mingw-libdb-5.3.28-2.fc24.src.rpm
mingw32-libdb-static.noarch: W: no-documentation
mingw64-libdb-static.noarch: E: summary-too-long C MinGW build of The Berkeley
DB database library for Win32 for Win32 for Win64 for Win64
mingw64-libdb-static.noarch: W: no-documentation
mingw32-libdb-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources
mingw64-libdb-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources
mingw-libdb.src:162: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot}
mingw-libdb.src:33: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 33, tab: line
3)
7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 4 warnings.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
10:09 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 1380105] Review Request:
mingw-libdb - MinGW build of The Berkeley DB database library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1380105
Thomas Sailer <t.sailer(a)alumni.ethz.ch> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags| |fedora-review?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
10:10 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 1380105] Review Request:
mingw-libdb - MinGW build of The Berkeley DB database library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1380105
Thomas Sailer <t.sailer(a)alumni.ethz.ch> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |t.sailer(a)alumni.ethz.ch
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
10:14 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 1380105] Review Request:
mingw-libdb - MinGW build of The Berkeley DB database library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1380105
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Sailer <t.sailer(a)alumni.ethz.ch> ---
How about moving the *.exe into a separate subpackage?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
11:01 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 1380105] Review Request:
mingw-libdb - MinGW build of The Berkeley DB database library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1380105
greg.hellings(a)gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |greg.hellings(a)gmail.com
--- Comment #8 from greg.hellings(a)gmail.com ---
I'll take over this -
Spec file: https://fedorapeople.org/~greghellings/mingw-libdb/mingw-libdb.spec
SRPM file:
https://fedorapeople.org/~greghellings/mingw-libdb/mingw-libdb-5.3.28-3.f...
I've updated in response to the above package review.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
6:35 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 1380105] Review Request:
mingw-libdb - MinGW build of The Berkeley DB database library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1380105
--- Comment #9 from greg.hellings(a)gmail.com ---
Any chance we could push this review along?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
8:19 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 1380105] Review Request:
mingw-libdb - MinGW build of The Berkeley DB database library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1380105
Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |POST
CC| |zebob.m(a)gmail.com
Assignee|t.sailer(a)alumni.ethz.ch |zebob.m(a)gmail.com
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #10 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com> ---
@greg.hellings(a)gmail.com
Package is good but it doesn't seem to be the latest version:
http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/database/database-technologies/berkeley...
Package is accepted still.
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Ms-PL", "Apache (v2.0)", "LGPL (v2 or later)",
"GPL (v2 or
later)", "Unknown or generated", "BSD (4 clause)",
"MIT/X11 (BSD
like)", "NTP", "Perl", "*No copyright* BSD
(unspecified)", "BSD (3
clause)", "zlib/libpng", "*No copyright* Public domain",
"GPL". 9136
files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/mingw-libdb/review-mingw-
libdb/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-
root, /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw, /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32,
/usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib, /usr/i686-w64-mingw32,
/usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root, /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-
root/mingw, /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
mingw32-libdb , mingw32-libdb-static , mingw64-libdb , mingw64-libdb-
static , mingw32-libdb-utils , mingw64-libdb-utils
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
9:35 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 1380105] Review Request:
mingw-libdb - MinGW build of The Berkeley DB database library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1380105
--- Comment #11 from Yaakov Selkowitz <yselkowi(a)redhat.com> ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #10)
Package is good but it doesn't seem to be the latest version:
http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/database/database-technologies/berkeleydb/
downloads/index-082944.html
Due to a license change in 6.x, this is the latest version which we are using
in Fedora atm.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
6:40 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 1380105] Review Request:
mingw-libdb - MinGW build of The Berkeley DB database library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1380105
--- Comment #12 from Gwyn Ciesla <limburgher(a)gmail.com> ---
(fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mingw-libdb. You may commit to the branch
"f27" in about 10 minutes.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
9:41 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 1380105] Review Request:
mingw-libdb - MinGW build of The Berkeley DB database library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1380105
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> ---
mingw-libdb-5.3.28-3.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-a11bee115b
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
9:41 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 1380105] Review Request:
mingw-libdb - MinGW build of The Berkeley DB database library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1380105
Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|POST |MODIFIED
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
12:57 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 1380105] Review Request:
mingw-libdb - MinGW build of The Berkeley DB database library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1380105
Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> ---
mingw-libdb-5.3.28-3.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 testing repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-a11bee115b
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
11:02 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 1380105] Review Request:
mingw-libdb - MinGW build of The Berkeley DB database library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1380105
Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed| |2017-12-10 00:02:16
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> ---
mingw-libdb-5.3.28-3.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
2353
days inactive
2791
days old
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
20 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com -
Red Hat Bugzilla