Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226515
Summary: Merge Review: unixODBC Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: nobody@fedoraproject.org QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com CC: tgl@redhat.com
Fedora Merge Review: unixODBC
http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/unixODBC/ Initial Owner: tgl@redhat.com
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: unixODBC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226515
pertusus@free.fr changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pertusus@free.fr BugsThisDependsOn| |203641
------- Additional Comments From pertusus@free.fr 2007-02-01 11:33 EST ------- I think it is time to reassess where dlopened objects should be. In my opinion the best thing is to have them in a %_libdir subdir and to change the default config file accordingly.
The issue of retro compatibility is important too, so I think that for a given number of fedora releases there could be symlinks pointing from the old location to the new location, and a README.fedora file could be added stating that in a given number of versions the dlopened objects will be removed from %_libdir.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: unixODBC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226515
bugzilla@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium
lemenkov@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |lemenkov@gmail.com
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=226515
Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |lemenkov@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com 2008-08-29 14:12:58 EDT --- I'll try to review it.
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=226515
--- Comment #3 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com 2008-12-10 15:06:24 EDT --- Ok, finally found free time to review it.
BTW, Tom, are you planning to update (at least devel branch) to 2.2.14?
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=226515
--- Comment #4 from Tom Lane tgl@redhat.com 2008-12-10 17:46:25 EDT --- I would like to push 2.2.14 into rawhide, but the immediate problem is that upstream decided to remove the "text" driver, which leaves us with a functionality gap. I haven't decided whether it's worth trying to get that driver packaged separately or not. I have gotten bugs indicating that people have used it in the past ...
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=226515
Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
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=226515
--- Comment #5 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com 2009-04-21 10:27:06 EDT --- Ok, since 2.2.14. is in Rawhide - here is my review request:
- rpmlint is not silent:
http://peter.fedorapeople.org/stuff/unixodbc_rpmlint.log
We may ignore messages, regarding non-versioned so-files in %{_libdir} and zero-length /etc/odbc.ini, however other messages needs fixing.
* You must convert ChangeLof from iso8859-1 in %prep * You must remove executable permisson from files, mentioned my rpmlint.
+/- The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. Unfortunately (perhaps, due to historical reasons) GUI module for unixODBC is named as unixODBC-kde, although it has almost nothing to do with KDE (purely Qt-based - the only link between them is DataManager(II) applications, used by KDE afaik). To be honest, I'd like this package to be renamed to something like unixODBC-gui, but the unixODBC package has very long history and even this small change may be relatively painless.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. + 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. + The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included in %doc. + The spec file is written in American English. Although I'm not a native english speaker and, therefore, this requirement of Fedora Review Giiudelines always confusing me :). + The spec file for the package is be legible. + The sources used to build the package are matching the upstream source:
[petro@Sulaco SOURCES]$ md5sum unixODBC-2.2.14.tar.gz* f47c2efb28618ecf5f33319140a7acd0 unixODBC-2.2.14.tar.gz f47c2efb28618ecf5f33319140a7acd0 unixODBC-2.2.14.tar.gz_from_srpm [petro@Sulaco SOURCES]$
+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1311282
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. + Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, calling ldconfig in %post and %postun. + A package owns all directories that it creates. + The package does not list any file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. +/- Permissions on files must be set properly, except those, noted above (easyfix). + 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 permissable content. + The package does not contain etremely large chunks of documentation. + Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. + C header files are in a -devel package. + No static libraries. + The package does not contains pkgconfig(.pc) files. + The devel sub-package requires the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}. + The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
- The sub-package containing GUI applications does include a %{name}.desktop file. Unfortunately, it does NOT properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section.
+ 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 the package must be valid UTF-8.
So, please,
* use proper installation procedure of desktop-files ( https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop ) * Suppress rpmlint messages
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=226515
Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com 2009-06-09 07:31:19 EDT --- All changes merged into F-11 and devel branches, so I think we may close this ticket.
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=226515
--- Comment #7 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com 2009-06-09 07:32:03 EDT --- Koji scratch build
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1401209
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org