Bug 1415612
Summary: | Review Request: sqlrelay - Database proxy | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | David Muse <david.muse> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody> |
Status: | CLOSED NOTABUG | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | david.muse, package-review, zebob.m |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2020-08-10 00:56:26 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: | |||
Bug Depends On: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 201449 |
Description
David Muse
2017-01-23 09:05:16 UTC
Are you interested in a review swap, maybe with bug #1385856? (In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #1) > Are you interested in a review swap, maybe with bug #1385856? Sure, though I'm not sure I'm really qualified. This is only my second package. Okay, let's give it a try. Alternatively, you could look (or also) into bug #1402590. Are you sure not every license used in the parts of sqlrelay need a valid license text for its own each? If yes, please use %license inside each subpackage. http://sqlrelay.sourceforge.net/license.html https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text For a review swap, can you maybe take a look into bug #1428202? Your FAS name seems to be davidleemuse, is this correct? Are you still interested in this package and looking for a reviewer? If yes, please answer the licenses issue mentioned in comment #3. Maybe we can do a review swap with bug #1469767? - make → %make_build - make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} → %make_install - Not sure what you're doing here %postun server-devel rmdir %{_includedir}/%{name} 2> /dev/null || : rmdir %{_includedir}/%{name}/private 2> /dev/null || : instead you should own the dir: %dir %{_includedir}/%{name} %dir %{_includedir}/%{name}/private - Same %postun c++-devel rmdir %{_includedir}/%{name} 2> /dev/null || : rmdir %{_includedir}/%{name}/private 2> /dev/null || : %postun c-devel rmdir %{_includedir}/%{name} 2> /dev/null || : rmdir %{_includedir}/%{name}/private 2> /dev/null || : %postun -n python3-%{name} rmdir %{python3_sitearch}/SQLRelay/__pycache__ 2> /dev/null || : rmdir %{python3_sitearch}/SQLRelay 2> /dev/null || : and so on - You should not glob the major soname version to avoid accidentally bumping the soname: %{_libdir}/libsqlrserver.so.* %{_libdir}/libsqlrutil.so.* - /sbin/ldconfig is not needed anymore, remove them all - /sbin/ldconfig calls have been removed upstream will fix library globbing too If multiple independent packages (sqlrelay-server-devel and sqlrelay-c++-devel) install into the same directories: %dir %{_includedir}/%{name} %dir %{_includedir}/%{name}/private Which should own the directories? Both? Both, the dirs will thus be removed when the last package owning them is removed. Got it. All of this is fixed upstream now. No update here? I'll be making an upstream release (1.5.0) in a few days, and I'll update the package as part of the release process. updated SPEC and SRPM: SPEC: http://www.firstworks.com/sqlrelay.spec SRPM: http://www.firstworks.com/sqlrelay-1.5.0-1.fc29.src.rpm - make → %make_build - make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} → %make_install - Not sure I get the Python stuff: %if 0%{?fedora} %package -n python3-%{name} %else %package -n python-%{name} Why not name the package python3-%{name} for EPEL too? We try to go away from python-X naming. If this is supposed to be a Python 2 package, name it python2-%{name}. In that case also take into account rhel 8 which supports Python3 by default. %if 0%{?fedora} || 0%{?rhel} > 7 This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag. You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group. Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned and will be closed. Thank you for your patience. This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script. The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month. As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it. |