This service will be undergoing maintenance at 00:00 UTC, 2016-08-01. It is expected to last about 1 hours
Bug 225675 - Merge Review: db4
Merge Review: db4
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
rawhide
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Jon Ciesla
Fedora Package Reviews List
:
Depends On:
Blocks: F9MergeReviewTarget
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2007-01-31 12:55 EST by Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
Modified: 2009-01-14 11:35 EST (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2009-01-14 11:35:33 EST
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
limburgher: fedora‑review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it 2007-01-31 12:55:22 EST
Fedora Merge Review: db4

http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/db4/
Initial Owner: jnovy@redhat.com
Comment 1 Jon Ciesla 2008-01-24 13:08:46 EST
rpmlint on srpm:

Lots of unversioned obsoletes, but since they're for db3, db2, etc, so I think
that's ok.

db4.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 133, tab: line 4)
The specfile mixes use of spaces and tabs for indentation, which is a
cosmetic annoyance.  Use either spaces or tabs for indentation, not both.

Cosmetic, but easy to fix.

db4.src: W: invalid-license BSD-style

Change to BSD.

No documentation warnings for -cxx, -tcl packages.

db4-java.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libdb_java-4.6.a
db4-tcl.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libdb_tcl-4.6.a

db4-utils.i386: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/db_deadlock 0555
And many other in /usr/bin.

These need to be corrected or explained in spec.

There are .la files in some packages.  These are not allowed, and should either
be removed or be justified in the spec.  Same goes for static libs.  If they are
needed by a dependent package, state this in the spec.

Other than the above, no other blockers.
Comment 2 Jon Ciesla 2008-05-16 11:04:17 EDT
Any updates?
Comment 3 Jon Ciesla 2008-09-09 11:22:18 EDT
Eval of current srpm:

rpmlint on srpm:

Unversioned obsoletes, as above, plus:

db4.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 140, tab: line 167)
The specfile mixes use of spaces and tabs for indentation, which is a cosmetic
annoyance.  Use either spaces or tabs for indentation, not both.

db4.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch22: db-4.5.20-jni-include-dir.patch
A patch is included in your package but was not applied. Refer to the patches
documentation to see what's wrong.

rpmlint on rpms:

No docs for -cxx, -tcl and -static.  Still the non-standard exec perm.

.la and static libs are good now.

So, improvement, not there yet, but easy to fix or explain.
Comment 4 Jindrich Novy 2008-09-11 05:47:26 EDT
(In reply to comment #3)
> Eval of current srpm:
> 
> rpmlint on srpm:
> 
> Unversioned obsoletes, as above, plus:

This should be fine since the obsoletes are there because of very ancient BDB versions (mostly all RHL ones) and they will never appear again.

> 
> db4.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 140, tab: line 167)
> The specfile mixes use of spaces and tabs for indentation, which is a cosmetic
> annoyance.  Use either spaces or tabs for indentation, not both.

This should be fixed now.

> 
> db4.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch22: db-4.5.20-jni-include-dir.patch
> A patch is included in your package but was not applied. Refer to the patches
> documentation to see what's wrong.

D'oh, seems like I forgot to apply the patch actually after rediffing. It is now fixed as well.

> rpmlint on rpms:
> 
> No docs for -cxx, -tcl and -static.  Still the non-standard exec perm.

The problem is that there is no documentation for -static, since it is actually the same as -devel but statically linked. The -cxx, -tcl is shipped without docs since there is shipped only runtime bits and I stuffed all the docs, which are actually of any use by developers into -devel subpackage.

Thanks for the review.
Comment 5 Jon Ciesla 2008-09-12 08:12:28 EDT
Ok, sounds good, can you place the above comments on the obsoletes and docs in the spec, for posterity?
Comment 6 Jon Ciesla 2008-12-04 14:33:29 EST
Ping?
Comment 7 Jindrich Novy 2008-12-05 08:34:49 EST
Jon, I'm unsure what comments to put to which place. db4 contains unversioned obsoletes in subpackages as well. So pasting comments before the Obsoletes in each subpackage seems a bit messy to me.
Comment 8 Jon Ciesla 2008-12-05 08:50:04 EST
Agreed, I'd put them before the Obsoletes for the utils subpackage, and explain that it applies to all the rest as well.  Comments for the -static (lack of)docs can go in the %files static right before %doc.
Comment 9 Robert Scheck 2009-01-13 17:20:14 EST
Jindrich, Jon - ping?
Comment 10 Jindrich Novy 2009-01-14 02:37:31 EST
Forgot to post an update here. Added this comment to unversioned obsoletes in spec preamble:

# unversioned obsoletes are OK here as these BDB versions never occur again
Obsoletes: db1, db2, db3
Comment 11 Jon Ciesla 2009-01-14 11:35:33 EST
Looks great.  Full review of the current version looks good.

APPROVED.

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