Spec Name or Url: http://wiki.fedora.pl/gajownik/python-sqlite2.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://wiki.fedora.pl/gajownik/python-sqlite2-2.0.5-1.src.rpm Description: pysqlite is an interface to the SQLite 3.x embedded relational database engine. It is almost fully compliant with the Python database API version 2.0 also exposes the unique features of SQLite. rpmlint warnings: [rpm-build@X SRPMS]$ rpmlint python-sqlite2-2.0.5-1.src.rpm W: python-sqlite2 invalid-license zlib/libpng [rpm-build@X SRPMS]$ I copied information about licence from PKG-INFO file. I have also question about package name. Should it be python-sqlite2 (there is python-sqlite in Core), pysqlite2 or python-pysqlite2 (like in Debian)? BTW I feel like a drunk child in a fog when it comes to packaging python addons ;) I based spec ifle on /usr/share/fedora/spectemplate-python.spec from fedora-rpmdevtools but I could have done something stupid...
May someone take a look at this package, please? This dependency is blocking gajim update.
I'll give it a spin, changing to FE-REVIEW
Licence: Can't comment on but if thats the licence they specify then who are we to complain? Looking at http://www.zlib.net/zlib_license.html its more then free enough :-) Package name: normally you would follow the upstream naming, but given that the Core package is called python-sqlite calling it python-sqlite2 is the proper thing to do to avoid confusion Personally i'd make the identation of the Requires: line the same as of the other header fields, but thats my perfectionistic nature :-) Shouldn't sqlite-devel >= 3.0.0 be in the build requires for clarity? - rpmlint output: W: python-sqlite2 invalid-license zlib/libpng As discussed above, i think its safe to ignore, we don't get to choose the licence, authors do that - Package follows naming guidelines - Specfile is in %{name} format - Follows PackagingGuidelines - Licence is Opensource - License field in the package spec file matches the actual license - Incluses licence from source tarbal - In american english - And legible - md5sum matches with upstream download, and specfile url + d/l entry is valid - Build successfully on atleast i386 (tested) into binary rpm - Buildrequires is valid, but misses sqlite-devel (>= 3.0.0) entry! Above makes build in mock build fail with: In file included from src/module.c:24: src/connection.h:32:21: error: sqlite3.h: No such file or directory ... etc etc ... - Has no .so or locales so no macro's needed for it - Owns directories it created - No duplicate files - Has proper %clean section - Uses macro's consitently (as far as aplicable, pythoning is not done thru %configure, etc) - Contains permisable code - %doc doesn't contain package critical files to operate - No header files or static / .so libs or pkgfiles - No gui so no need for .desktop files Please correct the buildrequires error so i can verify it builds cleanly in mock, once thats working i think we are done
(In reply to comment #3) > Personally i'd make the identation of the Requires: line the same as of the > other header fields, but thats my perfectionistic nature :-) I also put spaces in my other spec files but this one is exception -- I wanted to make this line fit in 80 characters wide terminal. > Shouldn't sqlite-devel >= 3.0.0 be in the build requires for clarity? Aghh, I checked dependencies with fedora-rmdevelrpms script but I must have forgotten about adding BR to the spec file. I put only âBuildRequires: sqlite-develâ because on FC3+ sqlite package is in version 3.1.2. > Please correct the buildrequires error so i can verify it builds cleanly in > mock, once thats working i think we are done Done. http://pmail.pl/~raven/python-sqlite2.spec http://pmail.pl/~raven/python-sqlite2-2.0.5-2.src.rpm (sorry that it took me so long -- I had problems with finding webserver)
Nock builds cleanly and BuildRequires is peachy perfect. Thanks for solving those last issues All the other items from last review list still apply the same (all correct). FE-APPROVED
Thanks for the review! Package was built correctly in fedora-development-extras.