Bug 225997

Created attachment 147136 [details]
Use $RPM_OPT_FLAGS

http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2007-January/msg00339.html
Build doesn't use $RPM_OPT_FLAGS, but rather hardcoded CFLAGS containing a -O20
oddball, quick and dirty fix attached.

Is the static library needed for something?

Yeah, the lack of RPM_OPT_FLAGS is a known problem both here and in
libdbi-drivers; will fix when I get some time for this package.

Don't see any strong reason to keep the static library, no.

Review:

Good:
- name ok
- %{optflags} are used now
- no static libs
- no *.la
- libs correctly packaged
- group ok
- BR ok
- parallel make


Needswork:
- patch does not have an upstream bug or a comment, that it was send to the maintainer
- please use INSTALL="install -p", when installing to preserve timestamps
- use %{_includedir} in %files
- please just use "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" and not
  "[ "$RPM_BUILD_ROOT" != "/" ] && rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT"
  (That's more common and on recent fedora versions, that could even left out completely. But better let them there, till EPEL also supports them.)

- license missing:
  The doc is licensed under GFDL so license should be:
  LGPLv2+ and GFDL
  And please make a note in the spec file, what is under which license.
  see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios

Mass reassigning all merge reviews to their component. For more details, see this FESCO ticket:

  https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1269

If you don't know what merge reviews are about, please see:

  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Merge_Reviews

How to handle this bug is left to the discretion of the package maintainer.

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
=======
- 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.
  Note: License file COPYING is marked as %doc instead of %license
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
- Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
  (~1MB) or number of files.
  Note: Documentation size is 2007040 bytes in 57 files.
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation


===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

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: "LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "GPL (v2
     or later)", "LGPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)",
     "Unknown or generated". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output
     of licensecheck in /home/mskalick/libdbi/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[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
[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.
[x]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
     that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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 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]: 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).
[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libdbi-
     devel
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
     Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 2027520 bytes in /usr/share
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).

Fixed in rawhide.