Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: OTL - OTL library for database connections and queries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=471522
Summary: Review Request: OTL - OTL library for database connections and queries Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: hayden.james@gmail.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: http://hayden.doesntexist.com/~hjames/otl.spec SRPM URL: http://hayden.doesntexist.com/~hjames/otl-devel-4.0.176-2.fc9.src.rpm Description: OTL C++ database library/wrapper for Oracle/OCI, ODBC, and DB2.
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=471522
Hayden James hayden.james@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |177841
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=471522
Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |lemenkov@gmail.com AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |lemenkov@gmail.com Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com 2008-11-14 05:57:48 EDT --- I'll review it.
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=471522
--- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com 2008-11-14 06:12:17 EDT --- Notes:
* You forgot to add %prep section to your spec-file (where rpmbuild should unzip sources). Please add
%prep %setup -q -c
This means that rpmbuild will create default directory in BUILD (%{name}-%{version}), cd into it and will quietly unzip %{SOURCE0}
* Add empty %build section (just to make rpmlint happy)
* You should use mighty power of 'install' command instead of creating directory my hands :). E.g. instead of
mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_includedir}/otl cp -a otlv4.h $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_includedir}/otl
you may use
install -D -p -m 644 otlv4.h $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_includedir}/%{name}/otlv4.h
* Please split %description in shorter lines (to silent rpmlint):
otl.src: E: description-line-too-long OTL 4.0 was designed as a combination of a C++ template framework and OTL-adapters. otl.src: E: description-line-too-long The framework is a generic implementation of the concept of OTL streams. The OTL-adapters otl.src: E: description-line-too-long are thin wrappers around the database APIs and are used as class type parameters
Other things looks sane.
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=471522
--- Comment #3 from Hayden James hayden.james@gmail.com 2008-11-15 02:00:20 EDT --- Ok, fixed above:
http://hayden.doesntexist.com/~hjames/otl-devel.spec http://hayden.doesntexist.com/~hjames/otl-devel-4.0.176-3.fc9.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=471522
--- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com 2008-11-15 05:10:15 EDT --- Few additional remarks:
* Add newline between %setup and %build (just cosmetic) * About renaming to otl-devel - although it's not a blocker I advise you to rename it back to otl. First, if some Fedora user will decide to play with otl, his first attempt will be "yum install otl". E.g. I strongly vote against naming of packages which differs from upstream ones w/o reasons. I can't find any reasons in your case.
However some packages does prefer your current naming scheme.
If you'll finally decide to stay with otl-devel, you should add "Provides: otl" to your spec-file.
Please consider these two advices (of course, you may reject both - they're not a blocker issues) and I'll make a review.
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=471522
--- Comment #5 from Hayden James hayden.james@gmail.com 2008-11-15 11:07:57 EDT --- Ok, I fixed these last two issues http://hayden.doesntexist.com/~hjames/otl-devel.spec http://hayden.doesntexist.com/~hjames/otl-devel-4.0.176-4.fc9.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=471522
Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com 2008-11-15 12:02:16 EDT --- REVIEW:
+ rpmlint is (almost) silent:
[petro@Sulaco SPECS]$ rpmlint ../RPMS/noarch/otl-devel-4.0.176-4.fc9.noarch.rpm otl-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. [petro@Sulaco SPECS]$ rpmlint ../SRPMS/otl-devel-4.0.176-4.fc9.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [petro@Sulaco SPECS]$
+ The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . + The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. + The package meets the Packaging Guidelines . + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines . + The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (BSD). + The spec file is written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible. + The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL.
[petro@Sulaco SOURCES]$ md5sum otlv4_h.zip* 16b07c774b737bd9fa0d8e0d3a569c67 otlv4_h.zip 16b07c774b737bd9fa0d8e0d3a569c67 otlv4_h.zip.from_srpm [petro@Sulaco SOURCES]$
+ The package successfully compiles and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture (ppc). + No additional build dependencies + No need to handle locales + Does not contain shared library files + The package owns all directories that it creates. + The package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. + Permissions on files are set properly. + The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT . + The package consistently uses macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines . + The package contains code, or permissable content. + Does not contain large documentation files + Does not contain %doc files + Header files are in a -devel package. + Does not contain static libraries + Does not contain pkgconfig(.pc) files + Does not contain library files with a suffix + Does not contain any .la libtool archives + No a GUI application + The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. - At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.
APPROVED.
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=471522
Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|177841 |
--- Comment #7 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2008-11-15 12:55:23 EDT --- (removing NEEDSPONSOR)
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=471522
Hayden James hayden.james@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #8 from Hayden James hayden.james@gmail.com 2008-11-15 16:38:27 EDT --- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: otl Short Description: OTL is a C++ template library for Oracle/OCI, ODBC, and DB2/CLI connectivity Owners: hjames Branches: F-9 F-10 InitialCC: mtasaka lemenkov
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=471522
Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Summary|Review Request: OTL - OTL |Review Request: otl - OTL |library for database |library for database |connections and queries |connections and queries
--- Comment #9 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com 2008-11-16 15:09:03 EDT --- What is the package name here? I see otl in the request, but the reviewed package was otl-devel?
I don't see why it would be otl-devel if upstream is named otl... can you explain?
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=471522
--- Comment #10 from Hayden James hayden.james@gmail.com 2008-11-16 17:49:12 EDT --- This package is just for development of the OTL library. http://otl.sourceforge.net. It was suggested that since it was a header only project that it would be more appropriate to name the package otl-devel, however I don't have any strong feelings either way, what do you think is the correct way?
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=471522
--- Comment #11 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com 2008-11-18 20:49:26 EDT --- Well, the upstream project is "otl" so I would call it that here as well. Do other linux distros ship it as otl-devel? Is it better known by that name?
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=471522
--- Comment #12 from Hayden James hayden.james@gmail.com 2008-11-18 22:58:24 EDT --- I renamed the package to otl
http://hayden.doesntexist.com/~hjames/otl-4.0.176-5.fc9.src.rpm http://hayden.doesntexist.com/~hjames/otl.spec
There are no other changes. So I would like to go ahead with the cvs request:
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: otl Short Description: OTL is a C++ template library for Oracle/OCI, ODBC, and DB2/CLI connectivity Owners: hjames Branches: F-9 F-10 InitialCC: mtasaka lemenkov
Thanks.
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=471522
Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
--- Comment #13 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com 2008-11-19 16:37:35 EDT --- cvs done with the exception that user lemenkov doesn't seem to exist. ;(
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=471522
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2008-11-19 23:44:05 EDT --- otl-4.0.176-5.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/otl-4.0.176-5.fc9
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=471522
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2008-11-19 23:44:38 EDT --- otl-4.0.176-5.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/otl-4.0.176-5.fc10
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=471522
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2008-11-21 05:55:19 EDT --- otl-4.0.176-5.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
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=471522
Hayden James hayden.james@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
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=471522
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2008-12-02 20:27:49 EDT --- otl-4.0.176-5.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org