Bug 571458
| Summary: | Review Request: sqlite36 - Library that implements an embeddable SQL database engine | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Steve Traylen <steve.traylen> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | BJ Dierkes <derks> |
| Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | derks, fedora-package-review, notting |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | derks:
fedora-review?
|
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2011-02-28 12:58:57 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: | |||
|
Description
Steve Traylen
2010-03-08 15:34:26 UTC
PASS: rpmlint run on every package: $ rpmlint -i SPECS/sqlite36.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint -i /var/lib/mock/epel-5-x86_64/result/sqlite36-3.6.22-2.el5.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint -i /var/lib/mock/epel-5-x86_64/result/sqlite36-devel-3.6.22-2.el5.x86_64.rpm sqlite36-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. --- PASS: package is named according to guidelines (exception, multi-version pkg) PASS: spec file name matches base name (sqlite36.spec) --- FAIL: package does not fully meet guidelines reqarding Tcl extensions: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Tcl http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Tcl#Naming_Conventions http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Tcl#arch-specific_packages --- PASS: package is licensed with an approved license (Public Domain) PASS: spec file is written in American English PASS: spec file is legible --- PASS: sources match upstream: Source0: http://www.sqlite.org/sqlite-%{version}.tar.gz Source1: http://www.sqlite.org/sqlite_docs_%{docver}.zip $ curl -s http://www.sqlite.org/sqlite-3.6.22.tar.gz | md5sum ; md5sum SOURCES/sqlite-3.6.22.tar.gz a17bd53f1fde11f84adf79c6a1510ce5 - a17bd53f1fde11f84adf79c6a1510ce5 SOURCES/sqlite-3.6.22.tar.gz $ curl -s http://www.sqlite.org/sqlite_docs_3_6_22.zip | md5sum ; md5sum SOURCES/sqlite_docs_3_6_22.zip 665889e9de50136514aa267173066e96 - 665889e9de50136514aa267173066e96 SOURCES/sqlite_docs_3_6_22.zip --- PASS: package successfully compiles on atleast one primary arch (el5-x86_64) PASS: all build dependencies are listed PASS: spec file handles locales properly (no locale files) PASS: ldconfig is called in %post/%postun PASS: package does not bundle copes of system libraries PASS: package owns all directories it creates (none) PASS: files are not listed more than once PASS: permissions on files are set properly PASS: header files are in -devel PASS: doc files are in -doc PASS: no static files to package in -static PASS: library files are packages under base, .so without suffix under -devel PASS: -devel package requires base package PASS: package does not include any .la/.a files PASS: package does not own files/directories already owned by other packages PASS: all file names are UTF-8 --- ????: license file not included in source, should request upstream include it. PASS: the package builds in mock PASS: software functions as expected (calling sqlite36) ????: -doc sub package does not require base package PASS: pkgconfig files are packages under -devel --- Summary: Looks mostly good: FAIL: package does not fully meet guidelines reqarding Tcl extensions. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Tcl http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Tcl#Naming_Conventions http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Tcl#arch-specific_packages ????: License file is not included in source... SHOULD request that upstream includes it. ????: The -doc subpackage doesn't require the base package. Up to you if you want to change that, its not a MUST. I am no longer interested in this package as I was only adding it to add svn16 package to EPEL and since that is now in RHEL5.6 this is no longer necessary. Thanks Brian for the review. Steve. |