https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845934
Bug ID: 845934 QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org Severity: medium Version: rawhide Priority: medium CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: witty - C++ library for developing web applications Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: miminar@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora
Spec URL: http://minami.cz/public/witty.spec SRPM URL: http://minami.cz/public/witty-3.2.1-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: Web C++ library with widget oriented API that uses well-tested patterns of desktop GUI development tailored to the web. To the developer, it offers abstraction of web-specific implementation details, including client-server protocols, event handling, graphics support, graceful degradation (or progressive enhancement), and URL handling.
Fedora Account System Username: miminar
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845934
Robin Lee robinlee.sysu@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |robinlee.sysu@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Robin Lee robinlee.sysu@gmail.com --- Why name the package witty instead of wt?
There is a maintained wt rpm in Russian Fedora repo: http://pkgs.org/fedora-16/russian-fedora-free-updates-x86_64/wt-3.2.0-1.fc16... . You may have a look at it.
The latest version is 3.2.2-p1.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845934
--- Comment #2 from Michal Minar miminar@redhat.com --- One reason for naming it 'witty' is that ubuntu and and debian does so: http://packages.debian.org/source/sid/witty https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/witty Second is that it's subjectively nicer name. Citing its homepage: "Wt (pronounced as witty) is a C++ library for developing web applications." Thank you for pointing on existing rpm, I'll try to contact the mantainer first. And thank you for checking the version. I was packaging this for some time and somehow I missed this new release.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845934
--- Comment #3 from Michal Minar miminar@redhat.com --- New spec inspired with rpm mention above: Spec URL: http://minami.cz/public/wt.spec SRPM URL: http://minami.cz/public/wt-3.2.2p1-1.fc16.src.rpm Renamed to wt.
Vasiliy N. Glazov (one of maintainers of wt in Russian fedora) is now on vacation, but expressed interest. So let's wait for his feedback when he comes back.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845934
Vasiliy Glazov vascom2@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |vascom2@gmail.com
--- Comment #4 from Vasiliy Glazov vascom2@gmail.com --- I return and ready to work.
1. First of all, we must understand name of last sources: 3.2.2-p1 Jul 27, 2012 Wt 3.2.2 patch-level 1
It pre-release or post-release of 3.2.2? Then package name should be if pre: wt-3.2.2-0.1.p1 if post: wt-3.2.2-2.p1 http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Non-Numeric_Version...
2. I think subpackages -devel and -examples can be merged. Because all header files should be in devel. And install -examples without -devel does not make sense. 3. Remove all defattr... from %files section. 4. Remove rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT from %install section. 5. Why you convert absolute symlink to relative? rpmlint warning on it.
Please check all packages (and srpm and spec) with rpmlint tool.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845934
--- Comment #5 from Michal Minar miminar@redhat.com --- (In reply to comment #4)
I return and ready to work.
- First of all, we must understand name of last sources:
3.2.2-p1 Jul 27, 2012 Wt 3.2.2 patch-level 1
It pre-release or post-release of 3.2.2? Then package name should be if pre: wt-3.2.2-0.1.p1 if post: wt-3.2.2-2.p1 http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Non- Numeric_Version_in_Release
It's a post-release. On http://sourceforge.net/projects/witty/files/wt/3.2.2/ you can find version 3.2.2, that was uploaded before 3.2.2-p1. You are right about the version scheme. I've got the naming convention wrong, when reading these guide lines last time. wt-3.2.2-1.p1 should be the correct one.
- I think subpackages -devel and -examples can be merged. Because all
header files should be in devel. And install -examples without -devel does not make sense.
I'm not sure about that. I followed a qt rpm package example, which bundles both binary examples and their source file into one. I'd rather not move example source files into devel, since they are not neccessary to build anything against wt library. Probably better solution would be not to make and -examples pkg, add their source files to -doc package and let the user build them, if he wants to.
- Remove all defattr... from %files section.
- Remove rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT from %install section.
Ok. Also the %clean section is not neccessary.
- Why you convert absolute symlink to relative? rpmlint warning on it.
Rpmlint complains about both relative and absolute ones. This is one more reason to package the examples into doc without binaries. Because this package can not be rid of rpmlint warnings.
Please check all packages (and srpm and spec) with rpmlint tool.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845934
--- Comment #6 from Vasiliy Glazov vascom2@gmail.com --- At least you need remove all errors from rpmlint
wt-examples.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/wt/resources/themes/default/stripes/generate.sh 0644L /bin/sh wt-examples.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/wt/resources/themes/polished/no-stripes/generate.sh 0644L /bin/sh wt-examples.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/wt/resources/themes/polished/stripes/generate.sh 0644L /bin/sh wt-examples.x86_64: E: htaccess-file /usr/lib64/Wt/examples/hangman/.htaccess wt-examples.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/wt/resources/themes/default/no-stripes/generate.sh 0644L /bin/sh wt-examples.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/wt/resources/themes/default/stripes/generate.sh 0644L /bin/sh wt-examples.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/wt/resources/themes/polished/no-stripes/generate.sh 0644L /bin/sh wt-examples.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/wt/resources/themes/polished/stripes/generate.sh 0644L /bin/sh wt-examples.x86_64: E: htaccess-file /usr/lib64/Wt/examples/hangman/.htaccess wt-examples.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/wt/resources/themes/default/no-stripes/generate.sh 0644L /bin/sh
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845934
Robin Lee robinlee.sysu@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: witty - C++ |Review Request: wt - C++ |library for developing web |library for developing web |applications |applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845934
--- Comment #7 from Robin Lee robinlee.sysu@gmail.com --- My some initial opinions:
* No explicit require on Boost libraries * BR cmake * My suggestion of subpackaging: - wt, for the core libraries - wt-dbo, for the Dbo libraries, including the Sqlite backend - wt-dbo-postgres, for the Postgres backend of Dbo - wt-dbo-firebird, for the Firebird backend of Dbo - wt-devel - wt-examples - wt-doc, for all the documents, marked noarch
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845934
--- Comment #8 from Vasiliy Glazov vascom2@gmail.com --- Robin, examples directory contain some .h files. Should them be in wt-devel or in wt-examples subpackage?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845934
--- Comment #9 from Robin Lee robinlee.sysu@gmail.com --- Absolutely not in wt-devel. qt-examples also contains all the source codes of the examples.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845934
--- Comment #10 from Michal Minar miminar@redhat.com --- Fixed some issues: Spec URL: http://minami.cz/public/wt.spec SRPM URL: http://minami.cz/public/wt-3.2.2-1.p1.fc16.src.rpm * corrected version-release to comply to post-release naming * added BR cmake * removed boost libs from Requires * subpackaging done as Robin suggested * .htaccess files renamed to htaccess * removed generate.sh scripts, since they are not required to run anything
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845934
Robin Lee robinlee.sysu@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |robinlee.sysu@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845934
Robin Lee robinlee.sysu@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845934
--- Comment #11 from Robin Lee robinlee.sysu@gmail.com --- Package Review ==============
Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated
==== C/C++ ==== [x]: MUST Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: wt-examples-3.2.2-1.p1.fc16.x86_64.rpm : /usr/lib64/Wt/examples/blog/BlogRSSFeed.h wt- ..... (OK. Those are in an package of example programs)
[x]: MUST ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: MUST Package contains no static executables. [x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: MUST Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
==== Generic ==== [x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. [x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine [!]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. Note: Please set cmake macro USE_SYSTEM_SQLITE3 to use system sqlite
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required [x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: MUST %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5 [x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [?]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: MUST Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required [x]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x]: MUST 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 %doc. [!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Please check the attachment 'licensecheck-different.txt' for files with a different license.
[x]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters. [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: MUST No %config files under /usr. [x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [!]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. The following directories not owned: %{_datadir}/wt/ %{_datadir}/wt/resources/
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: MUST Package installs properly. [x]: MUST Package is not relocatable. [!]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. Note: wt-dbo does not require wt. And so keep a copy of license in wt-dbo.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [?]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [?]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: SHOULD 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]: SHOULD Dist tag is present. [x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [x]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. [x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SHOULD Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. [x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL. [x]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. Note: test requires Internet connection. [x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
Issues: [!]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. Note: Please set cmake macro USE_SYSTEM_SQLITE3 to use system sqlite [!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Please check the attachment 'licensecheck-different.txt' for files with a different license. [!]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. The following directories not owned: %{_datadir}/wt/ %{_datadir}/wt/resources/ /var/spool/wt /var/spool/wt/run %{_includedir}/Wt/ %{_defaultdocdir}/%{name}-%{version}/images/ %{_defaultdocdir}/%{name}-%{version}/reference/ %{_defaultdocdir}/%{name}-%{version}/tutorial/ %{_defaultdocdir}/%{name}-%{version}/examples/ [!]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. Note: * wt-dbo does not require wt. And so keep a copy of license in wt-dbo. * wt-devel should require wt-dbo-firebird
Other personal checks: [!]: Is that necessary to rename %{_datadir}/Wt/ to %{_datadir}/wt/ ? [!]: %{_defaultdocdir}/%{name}-%{version}/main is a junk. [!]: Summary and description texts may be revised. My suggestions: * Summary for dbo: Wt::Dbo ORM library and the Sqlite backend * Desc for dbo: This package contains the Wt::Dbo Object-Relational Mapping library and the Sqlite3 backend of it.
* Summary for dbo-postgres : PostgresSQL backend for the Wt::Dbo ORM library * Desc for dbo-postgres: This package contains the PostgresSQL backend for the Wt::Dbo ORM library
* Summary for devel : 'Development files for Wt and Wt::Dbo' * Desc for devel: This package contains the files necessary to develop applications using the Wt toolkit and the Wt::Dbo ORM library.
* Summary for examples may be just 'Examples for Wt'. * Desc for examples may be 'This package contains programming examples distributeed with official Wt release.'
* Summary for doc may be 'Documents for the Wt toolkit' * Desc for doc may be 'This package contains the documents for Wt API and examples.'
Requires -------- wt-devel-3.2.2-1.p1.fc16.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
libwt.so.33()(64bit) libwtdbo.so.33()(64bit) libwtdbofirebird.so.33()(64bit) libwtdbopostgres.so.33()(64bit) libwtdbosqlite3.so.33()(64bit) libwtext.so.33()(64bit) libwtfcgi.so.33()(64bit) libwthttp.so.33()(64bit) libwttest.so.3()(64bit) wt(x86-64) = 3.2.2-1.p1.fc16 wt-dbo(x86-64) = 3.2.2-1.p1.fc16 wt-dbo-postgres(x86-64) = 3.2.2-1.p1.fc16
wt-debuginfo-3.2.2-1.p1.fc16.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
wt-dbo-3.2.2-1.p1.fc16.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/sbin/ldconfig libboost_date_time-mt.so.1.47.0()(64bit) libboost_system-mt.so.1.47.0()(64bit) libboost_thread-mt.so.1.47.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libwtdbo.so.33()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) wt(x86-64) = 3.2.2-1.p1.fc16
wt-doc-3.2.2-1.p1.fc16.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
wt-dbo-postgres-3.2.2-1.p1.fc16.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/sbin/ldconfig libboost_date_time-mt.so.1.47.0()(64bit) libboost_system-mt.so.1.47.0()(64bit) libboost_thread-mt.so.1.47.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpq.so.5()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.1)(64bit) libwtdbo.so.33()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) wt(x86-64) = 3.2.2-1.p1.fc16 wt-dbo(x86-64) = 3.2.2-1.p1.fc16
wt-dbo-firebird-3.2.2-1.p1.fc16.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/sbin/ldconfig libboost_date_time-mt.so.1.47.0()(64bit) libboost_system-mt.so.1.47.0()(64bit) libboost_thread-mt.so.1.47.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libfbclient.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libwtdbo.so.33()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) wt(x86-64) = 3.2.2-1.p1.fc16 wt-dbo(x86-64) = 3.2.2-1.p1.fc16
wt-examples-3.2.2-1.p1.fc16.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/bin/bash libGraphicsMagick.so.3()(64bit) libQtCore.so.4()(64bit) libQtGui.so.4()(64bit) libboost_date_time-mt.so.1.47.0()(64bit) libboost_filesystem-mt.so.1.47.0()(64bit) libboost_program_options-mt.so.1.47.0()(64bit) libboost_random-mt.so.1.47.0()(64bit) libboost_regex-mt.so.1.47.0()(64bit) libboost_signals-mt.so.1.47.0()(64bit) libboost_system-mt.so.1.47.0()(64bit) libboost_thread-mt.so.1.47.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypt.so.1()(64bit) libcrypto.so.10()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libhpdf-2.1.0.so()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangoft2-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpng12.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libssl.so.10()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.1)(64bit) libwt.so.33()(64bit) libwtdbo.so.33()(64bit) libwtdbosqlite3.so.33()(64bit) libwtext.so.33()(64bit) libwthttp.so.33()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) wt(x86-64) = 3.2.2-1.p1.fc16 wt-dbo(x86-64) = 3.2.2-1.p1.fc16
wt-3.2.2-1.p1.fc16.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/sbin/ldconfig config(wt) = 3.2.2-1.p1.fc16 libGraphicsMagick.so.3()(64bit) libboost_date_time-mt.so.1.47.0()(64bit) libboost_filesystem-mt.so.1.47.0()(64bit) libboost_program_options-mt.so.1.47.0()(64bit) libboost_random-mt.so.1.47.0()(64bit) libboost_regex-mt.so.1.47.0()(64bit) libboost_signals-mt.so.1.47.0()(64bit) libboost_system-mt.so.1.47.0()(64bit) libboost_thread-mt.so.1.47.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.10()(64bit) libfcgi++.so.0()(64bit) libfcgi.so.0()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libhpdf-2.1.0.so()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangoft2-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpng12.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libssl.so.10()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.1)(64bit) libwt.so.33()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides -------- wt-devel-3.2.2-1.p1.fc16.x86_64.rpm:
wt-devel = 3.2.2-1.p1.fc16 wt-devel(x86-64) = 3.2.2-1.p1.fc16
wt-debuginfo-3.2.2-1.p1.fc16.x86_64.rpm:
wt-debuginfo = 3.2.2-1.p1.fc16 wt-debuginfo(x86-64) = 3.2.2-1.p1.fc16
wt-dbo-3.2.2-1.p1.fc16.x86_64.rpm:
libwtdbo.so.33()(64bit) libwtdbosqlite3.so.33()(64bit) wt-dbo = 3.2.2-1.p1.fc16 wt-dbo(x86-64) = 3.2.2-1.p1.fc16
wt-doc-3.2.2-1.p1.fc16.noarch.rpm:
wt-doc = 3.2.2-1.p1.fc16
wt-dbo-postgres-3.2.2-1.p1.fc16.x86_64.rpm:
libwtdbopostgres.so.33()(64bit) wt-dbo-postgres = 3.2.2-1.p1.fc16 wt-dbo-postgres(x86-64) = 3.2.2-1.p1.fc16
wt-dbo-firebird-3.2.2-1.p1.fc16.x86_64.rpm:
libwtdbofirebird.so.33()(64bit) wt-dbo-firebird = 3.2.2-1.p1.fc16 wt-dbo-firebird(x86-64) = 3.2.2-1.p1.fc16
wt-examples-3.2.2-1.p1.fc16.x86_64.rpm:
wt-examples = 3.2.2-1.p1.fc16 wt-examples(x86-64) = 3.2.2-1.p1.fc16
wt-3.2.2-1.p1.fc16.x86_64.rpm:
config(wt) = 3.2.2-1.p1.fc16 libwt.so.33()(64bit) libwtext.so.33()(64bit) libwtfcgi.so.33()(64bit) libwthttp.so.33()(64bit) libwttest.so.3()(64bit) wt = 3.2.2-1.p1.fc16 wt(x86-64) = 3.2.2-1.p1.fc16
MD5-sum check ------------- http://citylan.dl.sourceforge.net/project/witty/wt/3.2.2/wt-3.2.2-p1.tar.gz : MD5SUM this package : d436430a4f1ae5fbcf038e645e4b5260 MD5SUM upstream package : d436430a4f1ae5fbcf038e645e4b5260 SHA256SUM this package : 1610b1950eda3614a12e915f5968d7b8659eb17231622681c9a1eafc586c8f05 SHA256SUM upstream package: 1610b1950eda3614a12e915f5968d7b8659eb17231622681c9a1eafc586c8f05
Generated by fedora-review 0.2.0 (53cc903) last change: 2012-07-09 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -c --no-build -b 845934 External plugins:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845934
--- Comment #12 from Robin Lee robinlee.sysu@gmail.com --- Created attachment 605305 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=605305&action=edit Files with different licenses
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845934
--- Comment #13 from Robin Lee robinlee.sysu@gmail.com --- Created attachment 605306 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=605306&action=edit rpmlint output on all the rpm files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845934
--- Comment #14 from Robin Lee robinlee.sysu@gmail.com --- A typo found in my review. The line should be:
* Desc for examples may be 'This package contains programming examples distributed with official Wt release.'
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845934
--- Comment #15 from Robin Lee robinlee.sysu@gmail.com --- The -doc subpackage should require -devel.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845934
--- Comment #16 from Robin Lee robinlee.sysu@gmail.com --- It may be better to use absolute path for the links in -examples subpackage. Since example may generate a Sqlite db file in the same directory, but the directory is not writable for normal user, he/she may have to copy the whole directory to another place and then the example run properly. But then relative symlink will break.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845934
--- Comment #17 from Michal Minar miminar@redhat.com --- Thank you Robin for thorough examination. Can you please explain, why there is a need for -doc package to require -devel? I've got an rpmlint error concerning this.
There is also a licensing problem. Witty bundles IBPP library (htpp://www.ibpp.org) under IBPP license. Unfortunately, this license is not known to Fedora, so I contacted legal-list; this influences just the Firebird backend.
Good point with copying the examples.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845934
--- Comment #18 from Robin Lee robinlee.sysu@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #17)
Thank you Robin for thorough examination. Can you please explain, why there is a need for -doc package to require -devel? I've got an rpmlint error concerning this.
OK, that's my fault.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845934
--- Comment #19 from Michal Minar miminar@redhat.com --- I tried to fix all errors, the result is here: Spec URL: http://minami.cz/public/wt.spec SRPM URL: http://minami.cz/public/wt-3.2.2-1.p1.fc16.src.rpm Summary changes: * corrected licensing - added PACKAGE-LICENSING file to docs - there is a bundled library (IBPP: htpp://www.ibpp.org) under IBPP license unfortunately, this license is not known to Fedora, so I contacted legal-list; this influences just the Firebird backend * packages own directories they create * using system sqlite library * fixed requires for -dbo, -postgres, -firebird - also added sqlite-devel as BR * renamed /usr/share/wt to /usr/share/Wt (which is default for witty) * removed %{_defaultdocdir}/%{name}-%{version}/main * symlinks to /usr/share/Wt/resources now absolute - good point with copying * rewritten summaries and descriptions I'm afraid, we'll need to wait for clarification regarding IBPP.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845934
--- Comment #20 from Robin Lee robinlee.sysu@gmail.com --- We should try our best to remove any bundled library, so maybe you can submit a new request for ibpp, and make it as blocker of this one.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845934
--- Comment #21 from Robin Lee robinlee.sysu@gmail.com --- Any usually it is recommended to bump release number even under review progress.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845934
--- Comment #22 from Robin Lee robinlee.sysu@gmail.com --- And usually it is recommended to bump release number even under review progress.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845934
--- Comment #23 from Michal Minar miminar@redhat.com --- Ok, I'll make a new package of it. Unfortunately Red Hat Legal founds their license Non-Free. I've asked them to consider relicensing under MIT.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845934
--- Comment #24 from Robin Lee robinlee.sysu@gmail.com --- Relicensing request is usually rude for upstream. Maybe at first you can exclude the Firebird backend and we can go ahead with Wt.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845934
--- Comment #25 from Michal Minar miminar@redhat.com --- Not packaging firebird backend: Spec URL: http://minami.cz/public/wt.spec SRPM URL: http://minami.cz/public/wt-3.2.2-2.p1.fc16.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845934
--- Comment #26 from Robin Lee robinlee.sysu@gmail.com --- * %{_libdir}/Wt/examples/ is not owned. * wt-doc subpackage should include a copy of LICENSE, since it doesn't require the base package. * wt-examples subpackage may use a special License tag if some of the examples generated from sources with special licenses.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845934
--- Comment #27 from Michal Minar miminar@redhat.com --- Fixed: Spec URL: http://minami.cz/public/wt.spec SRPM URL: http://minami.cz/public/wt-3.2.2-3.p1.fc16.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845934
--- Comment #28 from Robin Lee robinlee.sysu@gmail.com --- LICENSE would be included in three packages. That's conflicting and will leave the %{_defaultdocdir}/%{name}-%{version}/ directory unowned if wt is not installed. There are two solutions:
1. Let wt-dbo and wt-doc have their own doc dir. For wt-doc that is %{_docdir}/%{name}-doc-%{version}/, so wt-dbo and wt-doc can include their own true copies of license.
2. Let wt-doc require wt. But it's not acceptable if wt-dbo requires wt.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845934
--- Comment #29 from Robin Lee robinlee.sysu@gmail.com --- And ReleaseNotes.html with the same path is included in wt and wt-doc, that's not allowed.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845934
--- Comment #30 from Michal Minar miminar@redhat.com --- Fixed: Spec URL: http://minami.cz/public/wt.spec SRPM URL: http://minami.cz/public/wt-3.2.2-4.p1.fc16.src.rpm
IBPP team is considering relicensing.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845934
--- Comment #31 from Robin Lee robinlee.sysu@gmail.com --- Since the IBPP library is not considered non-free, you may need to reproduce the tarball flowing http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#When_Upstream_uses_Prohibi...
wt-devel installs a file to %{_datadir}/cmake/Modules/, so it should require cmake.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845934
--- Comment #32 from Michal Minar miminar@redhat.com --- Fixed: Spec URL: http://minami.cz/public/wt.spec SRPM URL: http://minami.cz/public/wt-3.2.2-5.p1.fc16.src.rpm
* added requires on cmake for -devel * removed IBPP library from source with bundled wt-generate-tarball.sh script
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845934
Robin Lee robinlee.sysu@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? | Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #33 from Robin Lee robinlee.sysu@gmail.com --- Approved by cheeselee
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845934
--- Comment #34 from Michal Minar miminar@redhat.com --- Thank you Robin for your patience, reminders and care. I've learned a lot during this review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845934
Michal Minar miminar@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs+
--- Comment #35 from Michal Minar miminar@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: wt Short Description: C++ library for developing web applications Owners: miminar Branches: f16 f17 f18 el6 InitialCC:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845934
--- Comment #36 from Robin Lee robinlee.sysu@gmail.com --- fedora-cvs should be set to '?' instead of '+'.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845934
Michal Minar miminar@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs+ | Flags| |fedora-cvs?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845934
--- Comment #37 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845934
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845934
--- Comment #38 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- wt-3.2.2-6.p1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/wt-3.2.2-6.p1.fc16
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845934
--- Comment #39 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- wt-3.2.2-6.p1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/wt-3.2.2-6.p1.fc17
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845934
--- Comment #40 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- wt-3.2.2-6.p1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/wt-3.2.2-6.p1.fc18
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845934
Michal Minar miminar@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed| |2012-09-13 09:39:02
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845934
--- Comment #41 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- wt-3.2.2-6.p1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/wt-3.2.2-6.p1.el6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845934
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |ERRATA
--- Comment #42 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- wt-3.2.2-6.p1.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845934
--- Comment #43 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- wt-3.2.2-6.p1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845934
--- Comment #44 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- wt-3.2.2-6.p1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla