[Bug 457160] Review Request: Zorba - General purpose XQuery processor implemented in C++

Sun Aug 17 09:10:51 UTC 2008

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=457160

David Timms <dtimms at iinet.net.au> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |dtimms at iinet.net.au

--- Comment #1 from David Timms <dtimms at iinet.net.au>  2008-08-17 05:10:50 EDT ---
zorba.review.txt:
Hi, you don't seem to be sponsored, so I can't perform an official review.
Instead, I can get the review process started with a pre-review. Have you
requested a fedoraproject account ?
===
[OK] OK
[NA] not applicable
[??] unsure, more info needed.
[ x] must fix

[OK] naming meets guidelines [same as upstream source], doesn't conflict
[OK] .spec is named as the package %{name}
[OK] generally meets packaging guidelines
[OK] upstream source md5sum matches.
dc4ffe43b191700b93c4802b8baeec38  zorba-0.9.21.tar.gz [within source rpm]
dc4ffe43b191700b93c4802b8baeec38  ../zorba-0.9.21.tar.gz [upstream]
[OK] buildroot is the second most preferred option
[OK] doesn't use %{locale} to handle locales.
[NA] doesn't use Prefix: tag.
[OK] header files are in the -devel sub package.
[OK] contains code not content
[OK] no static libs, no .pc files, no .la files
[OK] -devel package requires the base package
[OK] file names are UTF-8
[NA] .desktop: not a gui app.

[??] -devel include shows %name/%name/* . Is this what was intended, why ?

[??] are the .TAGFILEs needed by an end user of devel-docs ? Perhaps they are a
side result of the compile process ?

[??] license is Apache license v2 from web site. extracted upstream source
mentions "the Apache License" more than 700 times. The short name "APL 2.0" is
the correct fedora reference.

[??] NOTICE.txt also provides some license information / history. I haven't
analysed whether the license would be considered free for Fedora purposes. Have
each of the authors mentioned 

[??] devel-doc is created as a separate package. It isn't overly large, and
could potentially be part of the -devel package ? What reasoning caused you to
split the devel-docs out ?

[??] spec legible: 
- could be improved by sticking to a certain coding style within the spec with
relation to eg 2x blank lines between sections, rather than 0 or 1.
- the files section has one layout for some subpackages, and different spacing
for the last ones.

[ ?] might as well fix the spelling of grammer and headerss !

[ ?] while individually specifying each %files to include can be done, would it
be simpler to glob the folders instead (or have you already factored this in) ?

[??] python guidelines suggest placing python_sitelib determination at the top
of the spec. Any reason to do it elsewhere ?

[??] places files directly in the %{python_sitelib}, rather than a module named
subfolder. Not sure if that is allowed ?

[??] -python doesn't require the base package. Is there a reason why ?

[??] why put the *.py*, *.gif, *.rb examples in the python/ruby sub packages.
Would these be more appropriate for the devel-doc package ?

[??] %build turns on debug output. I don't know whether that is allowed in the
final package ?

[ x] rpmlint problems: rpmlint zorba-0.9.21-2.fc9.src.rpm 
zorba.src:116: E: files-attr-not-set
zorba.src:117: E: files-attr-not-set
zorba.src:120: E: files-attr-not-set
zorba.src:121: E: files-attr-not-set
zorba.src:122: E: files-attr-not-set
zorba.src:123: E: files-attr-not-set
zorba.src:124: E: files-attr-not-set
zorba.src:125: E: files-attr-not-set
zorba.src:126: E: files-attr-not-set
zorba.src:127: E: files-attr-not-set
zorba.src:128: E: files-attr-not-set
zorba.src:129: E: files-attr-not-set
zorba.src:130: E: files-attr-not-set
zorba.src:131: E: files-attr-not-set
zorba.src:132: E: files-attr-not-set
zorba.src:133: E: files-attr-not-set
zorba.src:134: E: files-attr-not-set
zorba.src:135: E: files-attr-not-set
zorba.src:136: E: files-attr-not-set
zorba.src:137: E: files-attr-not-set
zorba.src:138: E: files-attr-not-set
zorba.src:139: E: files-attr-not-set
zorba.src:140: E: files-attr-not-set
zorba.src:141: E: files-attr-not-set
zorba.src:142: E: files-attr-not-set
zorba.src:143: E: files-attr-not-set
zorba.src:144: E: files-attr-not-set
zorba.src:145: E: files-attr-not-set
zorba.src:146: E: files-attr-not-set
zorba.src:147: E: files-attr-not-set
zorba.src:148: E: files-attr-not-set
zorba.src:149: E: files-attr-not-set
zorba.src:150: E: files-attr-not-set
zorba.src:151: E: files-attr-not-set
zorba.src:152: E: files-attr-not-set
zorba.src:153: E: files-attr-not-set
zorba.src:154: E: files-attr-not-set
zorba.src:155: E: files-attr-not-set
zorba.src:160: E: files-attr-not-set
zorba.src:161: E: files-attr-not-set
zorba.src:162: E: files-attr-not-set
zorba.src:163: E: files-attr-not-set
zorba.src:164: E: files-attr-not-set
zorba.src:165: E: files-attr-not-set
zorba.src:169: E: files-attr-not-set
zorba.src:170: E: files-attr-not-set
zorba.src:171: E: files-attr-not-set
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 47 errors, 0 warnings.

use --info more abit more info about the errors.

[ x] doesn't build on i386. Is a build require missing ? Perhaps need to try
one of the methods to help determine build requires at:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRequires
---------------
-- look for component program_options
-- found ? Boost_PROGRAM_OPTIONS_LIBRARY_RELEASE-NOTFOUND
-- Boost_INCLUDE_DIRS: Boost_INCLUDE_DIR-NOTFOUND
-- Boost_LIBRARIES: 
-- Boost Version required: . Found: ..
CMake Error: Error in cmake code at
/home/davidt/rpmbuild/BUILD/zorba-0.9.21/cmake_modules/FindBoost.cmake:575:
MESSAGE Couldn't find the Boost libraries and/or include directory, or the
version found is too old. Please install the Boost libraries AND development
packages. You can set BOOST_ROOT, BOOST_INCLUDEDIR and BOOST_LIBRARYDIR to help
find Boost.
Current CMake stack: 
[2] /home/davidt/rpmbuild/BUILD/zorba-0.9.21/cmake_modules/FindBoost.cmake
[1] /home/davidt/rpmbuild/BUILD/zorba-0.9.21/CMakeLists.txt
-- Configuring done
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.46222 (%build)

RPM build errors:
    Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.46222 (%build)
---------------

[ x] doesn't own all the dirs it creates:
%dir %{_datadir}/doc/%{name}-%{version} is the dir only
the subfolders c, cxx, zorba, python ruby aren't owned {I could be wrong here,
since it won't build}.

[ x] unversioned .so must be in the -devel package

[ x] no excludearch yet does not build on i386

[ x] package provides .sos in normal lib dir, but doesn't use the guideline
must %post/un -p /sbin/ldconfig

[ x] clean rm -rf is commented out. Why has this been done ? I don't think it
could make it into Fedora like this.

[ x] not all %files sections include the %defattr() 

[ x] main package doc files are not marked as %doc. I assume they aren't
required for the executable to run.

[ x] LICENSE.txt is included in source, and hence must be included in package,
but is not marked %doc

[ x] -python summary line is repeated under description

[ x] -ruby package must indicate the required Ruby ABI version

[ x] -ruby library must indicate what it provides with a Provides:
ruby(LIBRARY) = VERSION

[ x] must bump release with each adjustment of the package. This provides
tracability, and ensures an update path.

You don't appear to have begun the fedoraproject account creation process. Note
the email you use there should be the one used in the changlelog as well. I
also notice that you are an upstream contributor. What applications are using
zorba so far ?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.