https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1380105
Bug ID: 1380105 Summary: Review Request: mingw-libdb - MinGW build of The Berkeley DB database library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ngompa13@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: http://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/ngompa/mingw-libdb/mingw-libd...
SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/ngompa/mingw-libdb/fedora-ra...
Description:
The Berkeley DB Database is a programmatic toolkit that provides database support for applications.
Fedora Account System Username: ngompa
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1380105
--- Comment #1 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- Spec URL: http://kinginuyasha.enanocms.org/downloads/mingw-libdb-5.3.28-2.fc24.src.rpm SRPM URL: http://kinginuyasha.enanocms.org/downloads/mingw-libdb.spec
Updated SRPM and Spec to use %license for storing license files.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1380105
--- Comment #2 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- Wow, I got them backwards...
Spec URL: http://kinginuyasha.enanocms.org/downloads/mingw-libdb.spec SRPM URL: http://kinginuyasha.enanocms.org/downloads/mingw-libdb-5.3.28-2.fc24.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1380105
Yaakov Selkowitz yselkowi@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |yselkowi@redhat.com
--- Comment #3 from Yaakov Selkowitz yselkowi@redhat.com --- Are the EXEs really useful here?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1380105
--- Comment #4 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- (In reply to Yaakov Selkowitz from comment #3)
Are the EXEs really useful here?
If someone wants to bundle the tools with the application they are building, or they are designing something that will need them, it's good to have them available so they can be pulled in. There's no reason *not* to provide them.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1380105
--- Comment #5 from Yaakov Selkowitz yselkowi@redhat.com --- (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #4)
(In reply to Yaakov Selkowitz from comment #3)
Are the EXEs really useful here?
If someone wants to bundle the tools with the application they are building, or they are designing something that will need them, it's good to have them available so they can be pulled in. There's no reason *not* to provide them.
The packaging guidelines[1] say otherwise.
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:MinGW#Executables_.28EXEs.29
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1380105
Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alias| |mingw-libdb
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1380105
Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- See Also| |https://bugzilla.redhat.com | |/show_bug.cgi?id=885919
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1380105
Thomas Sailer t.sailer@alumni.ethz.ch changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |t.sailer@alumni.ethz.ch
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Sailer t.sailer@alumni.ethz.ch --- The issues IMO are: - preserve (header) timestamps - tab vs. space in .spec - summaries ("for Win32 for Win64 for Win64")
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== MUST items =====
Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: 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 [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: 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. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files. [x]: 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: 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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: 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]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: mingw32-libdb-5.3.28-2.fc24.noarch.rpm mingw32-libdb-static-5.3.28-2.fc24.noarch.rpm mingw64-libdb-5.3.28-2.fc24.noarch.rpm mingw64-libdb-static-5.3.28-2.fc24.noarch.rpm mingw32-libdb-debuginfo-5.3.28-2.fc24.noarch.rpm mingw64-libdb-debuginfo-5.3.28-2.fc24.noarch.rpm mingw-libdb-5.3.28-2.fc24.src.rpm mingw32-libdb-static.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw64-libdb-static.noarch: E: summary-too-long C MinGW build of The Berkeley DB database library for Win32 for Win32 for Win64 for Win64 mingw64-libdb-static.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw32-libdb-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources mingw64-libdb-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources mingw-libdb.src:162: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot} mingw-libdb.src:33: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 33, tab: line 3) 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 4 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1380105
Thomas Sailer t.sailer@alumni.ethz.ch changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1380105
Thomas Sailer t.sailer@alumni.ethz.ch changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |t.sailer@alumni.ethz.ch
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1380105
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Sailer t.sailer@alumni.ethz.ch --- How about moving the *.exe into a separate subpackage?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1380105
greg.hellings@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |greg.hellings@gmail.com
--- Comment #8 from greg.hellings@gmail.com --- I'll take over this -
Spec file: https://fedorapeople.org/~greghellings/mingw-libdb/mingw-libdb.spec SRPM file: https://fedorapeople.org/~greghellings/mingw-libdb/mingw-libdb-5.3.28-3.fc26...
I've updated in response to the above package review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1380105
--- Comment #9 from greg.hellings@gmail.com --- Any chance we could push this review along?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1380105
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com Assignee|t.sailer@alumni.ethz.ch |zebob.m@gmail.com Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #10 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- @greg.hellings@gmail.com
Package is good but it doesn't seem to be the latest version: http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/database/database-technologies/berkeleydb/...
Package is accepted still.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Ms-PL", "Apache (v2.0)", "LGPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "BSD (4 clause)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "NTP", "Perl", "*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)", "BSD (3 clause)", "zlib/libpng", "*No copyright* Public domain", "GPL". 9136 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/mingw-libdb/review-mingw- libdb/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys- root, /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw, /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32, /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib, /usr/i686-w64-mingw32, /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root, /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys- root/mingw, /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files. [x]: 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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]: 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. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in mingw32-libdb , mingw32-libdb-static , mingw64-libdb , mingw64-libdb- static , mingw32-libdb-utils , mingw64-libdb-utils [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1380105
--- Comment #11 from Yaakov Selkowitz yselkowi@redhat.com --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #10)
Package is good but it doesn't seem to be the latest version: http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/database/database-technologies/berkeleydb/ downloads/index-082944.html
Due to a license change in 6.x, this is the latest version which we are using in Fedora atm.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1380105
--- Comment #12 from Gwyn Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mingw-libdb. You may commit to the branch "f27" in about 10 minutes.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1380105
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- mingw-libdb-5.3.28-3.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-a11bee115b
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1380105
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1380105
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- mingw-libdb-5.3.28-3.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-a11bee115b
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1380105
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2017-12-10 00:02:16
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- mingw-libdb-5.3.28-3.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org