https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975312
Bug ID: 975312 Summary: Review Request: libodb - Common ODB runtime library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: unspecified Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: davejohansen@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B9bQ41XLJ8QuV2w2cENOeEZiT0E/edit?usp=sharing SRPM URL: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B9bQ41XLJ8QuMUs2M3VaN2w4dzQ/edit?usp=sharing Description: This package contains the common ODB runtime library. Every application that includes code generated by the ODB compiler will need to link to this library. Fedora Account System Username: daveisfera
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975312
Björn Esser bjoern.esser@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |975310
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975312
Björn Esser bjoern.esser@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |bjoern.esser@gmail.com Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR), | |975313, 975314, 975315, | |975316, 975317, 975318
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975312
Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |lemenkov@gmail.com Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |lemenkov@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com --- Unblocking FE-NEEDSPONSOR - I've just sponsored Dave.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975312
--- Comment #2 from Dave Johansen davejohansen@gmail.com --- The updated files can be found at: Spec URL: http://daveisfera.fedorapeople.org/odb_2.2/specs/libodb.spec SRPM URL: http://daveisfera.fedorapeople.org/odb_2.2/SRPMS/libodb-2.2.3-1.fc19.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975312
Dave Johansen davejohansen@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On|975310 |
--- Comment #3 from Dave Johansen davejohansen@gmail.com --- The original spec file indicated that this depends on odb, but that is not actually the case, so I removed that.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975312
--- Comment #4 from Dave Johansen davejohansen@gmail.com --- The result of doing a scratch build on f19 can be seen at: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5658677
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975312
--- Comment #5 from Dave Johansen davejohansen@gmail.com --- Now that ODB itself has been approved, this package is ready for review.
The current files can be found at: Spec URL: http://daveisfera.fedorapeople.org/odb_2.2/specs/libodb.spec SRPM URL: http://daveisfera.fedorapeople.org/odb_2.2/SRPMS/libodb-2.2.3-1.el6.src.rpm
The only output from rpmlint is the following: libodb.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) runtime -> run time, run-time, untimely libodb.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime -> run time, run-time, untimely
But that seems to be a valid spelling ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runtime_library ), so I'm guessing that it's actually ok, but is there an "upstream" that I can put in a request for that to be considered a valid spelling?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975312
Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com --- OK, it looks like the package is in a very good shape. So here is my formal
REVIEW:
Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable
+ rpmlint is almost silent
sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpmlint ../RPMS/ppc/libodb-* ../SRPMS/libodb-2.2.3-1.fc21.src.rpm libodb.ppc: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) runtime -> run time, run-time, rudiment libodb.ppc: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime -> run time, run-time, rudiment
^^^ false positives
libodb.ppc: W: no-documentation
^^^ unfortunately we're experiencing a transition from old and versioned docdir (/use/share/doc/pkgname-1.2.3) towards new unversioned one (/use/share/doc/pkgname). That's why you shouldn't exclude docs within the %files section for now - this will remove docs entirely on F20 and F21 (my working machine upgraded to Fedora 21).
libodb.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) runtime -> run time, run-time, rudiment libodb.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime -> run time, run-time, rudiment
^^^ false positives.
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. sulaco ~/rpmbuild/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 (strict GPLv2). + The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included in %doc. Also see my comments above about docdir situation. + The spec file is written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible. + The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL.
sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum libodb-2.2.3.tar.bz2* 23656d33f6c8c9e3c9f5414476912f524b95a5f54bc3982d2be43f5e43e3b65e libodb-2.2.3.tar.bz2 23656d33f6c8c9e3c9f5414476912f524b95a5f54bc3982d2be43f5e43e3b65e libodb-2.2.3.tar.bz2.1 sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES:
+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on my PowerPC box. + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. 0 No need to handle locales. + The package stores shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's default paths, and it calls ldconfig in %post and %postun. + The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries. 0 The package is not designed to be relocatable. + The package owns all directories that it creates. + The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. Again see my comment about the docdir situation. + Permissions on files are set properly. + The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + The package consistently uses macros. + The package contains code, or permissible content. 0 No extremely large documentation files. + Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. + Header files are stored in a -devel package. 0 No static libraries. + The pkgconfig(.pc) files are stored in a -devel package. + The library file(s) that end in .so (without suffix) is(are) stored in a -devel package. + The -devel package requires the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} + The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives. 0 Not 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 %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.
I don't see any issues (apart from versioned/unversioned docdir situation which requires additional work on F-20+ branches), so this package is
APPROVED.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975312
Dave Johansen davejohansen@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC|package-review@lists.fedora | |project.org | Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #7 from Dave Johansen davejohansen@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: libodb Short Description: Common ODB runtime library from Code Synthesis Owners: daveisfera Branches: el5 el6 f18 f19 f20 InitialCC: peter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975312
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|libodb-2.2.3-1.el5 |libodb-2.2.3-1.fc20
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- libodb-2.2.3-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla