Bug 1146181 - Review Request: sqliteodbc - SQLite ODBC Driver
Summary: Review Request: sqliteodbc - SQLite ODBC Driver
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Jan Holcapek
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
: 1217212 (view as bug list)
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2014-09-24 17:12 UTC by Damian Wrobel
Modified: 2016-08-27 15:18 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2016-08-27 10:24:12 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
holcapek: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Damian Wrobel 2014-09-24 17:12:51 UTC
Spec URL: https://dwrobel.fedorapeople.org/projects/rpmbuild/SPECS/sqliteodbc.spec
SRPM URL: https://dwrobel.fedorapeople.org/projects/rpmbuild/SRPMS/sqliteodbc-0.999-1.fc20.src.rpm
Description: ODBC driver for SQLite interfacing SQLite 2.x and/or 3.x using the
unixODBC or iODBC driver managers. For more information refer to:
- http://www.sqlite.org    -  SQLite engine
- http://www.unixodbc.org  -  unixODBC Driver Manager
- http://www.iodbc.org     -  iODBC Driver Manager
Fedora Account System Username: dwrobel

Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7679014

Comment 1 Jan Holcapek 2015-05-19 21:49:36 UTC
*** Bug 1217212 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 2 Jan Holcapek 2015-05-19 21:59:20 UTC
I shall take this for a review.

Comment 3 Jan Holcapek 2015-06-03 21:29:21 UTC
No blockers, just a few questions/suggestions.

- rpmlint on both source and binary rpms looks good.
- Great idea of providing a sample config odbc.ini.sample!

- Any special reason to require files (%{_bindir}/iconv, %{_bindir}/odbcinst}) rather than packages (glibc-common, unixODBC, respectively)?
- Ad "correct EOL" in %prep: wouldn't dos2unix do the work more easily?
- Ad checking executable odbcinst in %post and %preun is not required, since there is a dependency to %{_bindir}/odbcinst, right? (And thus "true" at the end of %post and %preun is not necessary, too.)
- The upstream src rpm comes with quite old libtool; shouldn't we consider using the one from the distribution? That would require setting a new build-time dependency and patching Makefile.

Anyway, good job!

Comment 4 Damian Wrobel 2015-06-11 13:57:06 UTC
Jan, many thanks for taking this review.

(In reply to Jan Holcapek from comment #3)
> No blockers, just a few questions/suggestions.
> 
> - rpmlint on both source and binary rpms looks good.
> - Great idea of providing a sample config odbc.ini.sample!
> 
> - Any special reason to require files (%{_bindir}/iconv,
> %{_bindir}/odbcinst}) rather than packages (glibc-common, unixODBC,
> respectively)?
This way I don't need to care which particular package contain this file.

> - Ad "correct EOL" in %prep: wouldn't dos2unix do the work more easily?
It's based on the [1], which states that "...using dos2unix is not necessary".


> - Ad checking executable odbcinst in %post and %preun is not required, since
> there is a dependency to %{_bindir}/odbcinst, right? (And thus "true" at the
> end of %post and %preun is not necessary, too.)
Dependency in the spec don't protect us from situation where the 'odbcinst' got removed (intentionally or accidentaly) from the filesystem. As a result it might cause problems when you would like to reinstall this package.

> - The upstream src rpm comes with quite old libtool; shouldn't we consider
> using the one from the distribution? That would require setting a new
> build-time dependency and patching Makefile.
We might consider to report it upstream. I would prefer not to patch it until it would be really necessary. 

> 
> Anyway, good job!

[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding

Comment 5 Igor Gnatenko 2016-08-14 16:00:32 UTC
ping?

Comment 6 Gwyn Ciesla 2016-08-17 13:02:53 UTC
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/sqliteodbc

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2016-08-17 16:18:27 UTC
sqliteodbc-0.9994-1.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-1a3d3d42db

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2016-08-17 16:20:03 UTC
sqliteodbc-0.9994-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-f984bcea09

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2016-08-17 19:52:36 UTC
sqliteodbc-0.9994-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 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-2016-1a3d3d42db

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2016-08-18 01:51:13 UTC
sqliteodbc-0.9994-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 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-2016-f984bcea09

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2016-08-27 10:24:08 UTC
sqliteodbc-0.9994-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2016-08-27 15:18:48 UTC
sqliteodbc-0.9994-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.