https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294730
Bug ID: 1294730 Summary: Review Request: erlang-p1_pgsql - Pure Erlang PostgreSQL driver Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: rbarlow@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://rbarlow.fedorapeople.org/erlang-p1_pgsql.spec SRPM URL: https://rbarlow.fedorapeople.org/erlang-p1_pgsql-0-1.20150428gite72c03c6.fc2... Description: This is an Erlang PostgreSQL driver, used by ejabberd. Fedora Account System Username: rbarlow
Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12347561
There are three warnings from rpmlint:
Checking: erlang-p1_pgsql-0-1.20150428gite72c03c6.fc24.noarch.rpm erlang-p1_pgsql-0-1.20150428gite72c03c6.fc24.src.rpm erlang-p1_pgsql.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib erlang-p1_pgsql.noarch: W: no-documentation erlang-p1_pgsql.src:43: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package (main package) %{_libdir}/erlang/lib/%{srcname}-%{version} 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
I believe we can ignore these warnings. It is Erlang packaging convention to include all Erlang pacakges in %{_libdir}/erlang, and not all Erlang packages have binaries (like this one):
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Peter/Erlang_Packaging_Guidelines#Debug_...
Additionally, the upstream git repository does not contain any documentation for this package.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294730
Randy Barlow rbarlow@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1204119
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204119 [Bug 1204119] ejabberd-15.11 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294730
--- Comment #1 from Randy Barlow rbarlow@redhat.com --- I have made a new revision of this package, which is intended to be a rename of erlang-pgsql.
Spec URL: https://rbarlow.fedorapeople.org/erlang-p1_pgsql.spec SRPM URL: https://rbarlow.fedorapeople.org/erlang-p1_pgsql-0-15.20150428gite72c03c6.fc...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294730
--- Comment #2 from Upstream Release Monitoring upstream-release-monitoring@fedoraproject.org --- rbarlow's scratch build of erlang-p1_pgsql-0-15.20150428gite72c03c6.fc24.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12414009
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294730
--- Comment #3 from Randy Barlow rbarlow@redhat.com --- Here is the rpmlint output for the new revision:
Checking: erlang-p1_pgsql-0-15.20150428gite72c03c6.fc24.x86_64.rpm erlang-p1_pgsql-0-15.20150428gite72c03c6.fc24.src.rpm erlang-p1_pgsql.x86_64: E: no-binary erlang-p1_pgsql.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib erlang-p1_pgsql.x86_64: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.
The error can be ignored for the same reason as I mentioned above - Erlang packages should go into %{_libdir} by convention, and should not be noarch packages.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294730
--- Comment #4 from Randy Barlow rbarlow@redhat.com --- One thing to note: Though this is the same source code as erlang-pgsql (though a later version), it does not install to exactly the same location. The other package installs to %{_libdir}/erlang/lib/pgsql and this one installs to %{_libdir}/erlang/lib/p1_pgsql. That is why this package is needed, as ejabberd does not detect the other package as its dependency.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294730
--- Comment #5 from Upstream Release Monitoring upstream-release-monitoring@fedoraproject.org --- rbarlow's scratch build of erlang-p1_pgsql-0-15.20150428gite72c03c6.fc24.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12442099
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294730
Jeremy Cline jeremy@jcline.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |jeremy@jcline.org Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294730
Jeremy Cline jeremy@jcline.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Jeremy Cline jeremy@jcline.org --- Note that since you packaged this there has been a new release upstream.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
Generic: [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "MPL (v1.0)". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jcline/devel/fedora- review/1294730-erlang-p1_pgsql/licensecheck.txt [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: 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 [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [ ]: 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 must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [ ]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: 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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: erlang-p1_pgsql-0-15.20150428gite72c03c6.fc24.x86_64.rpm erlang-p1_pgsql-0-15.20150428gite72c03c6.fc24.src.rpm erlang-p1_pgsql.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ejabberd -> jabbered, jabberer, jabber erlang-p1_pgsql.x86_64: E: no-binary erlang-p1_pgsql.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib erlang-p1_pgsql.x86_64: W: no-documentation erlang-p1_pgsql.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ejabberd -> jabbered, jabberer, jabber 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory erlang-p1_pgsql.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ejabberd -> jabbered, jabberer, jabber erlang-p1_pgsql.x86_64: E: no-binary erlang-p1_pgsql.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib erlang-p1_pgsql.x86_64: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.
Requires -------- erlang-p1_pgsql (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): erlang-erts
Provides -------- erlang-p1_pgsql: erlang-p1_pgsql erlang-p1_pgsql(x86-64) erlang-pgsql
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/processone/pgsql/archive/e72c03c60bfcb56bbb5d259342021d9c... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : cbb42896ee42f202235f414bf46396df17cd851a83cefcf7c4dd319dac46d111 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : cbb42896ee42f202235f414bf46396df17cd851a83cefcf7c4dd319dac46d111
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1294730 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294730
--- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/erlang-p1_pgsql
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294730
Randy Barlow rbarlow@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|jeremy@jcline.org |rbarlow@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294730
Randy Barlow rbarlow@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2016-02-07 12:17:36
--- Comment #8 from Randy Barlow rbarlow@redhat.com --- http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12898298
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla