Bug 226515 - Merge Review: unixODBC
Merge Review: unixODBC
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Peter Lemenkov
Fedora Package Reviews List
Depends On: 203641
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2007-01-31 16:13 EST by Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
Modified: 2009-06-09 07:32 EDT (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2009-06-09 07:31:19 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
lemenkov: fedora‑review+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it 2007-01-31 16:13:21 EST
Fedora Merge Review: unixODBC

Initial Owner: tgl@redhat.com
Comment 1 Patrice Dumas 2007-02-01 11:33:28 EST
I think it is time to reassess where dlopened objects should be.
In my opinion the best thing is to have them in a %_libdir subdir
and to change the default config file accordingly.

The issue of retro compatibility is important too, so I think that 
for a given number of fedora releases there could be symlinks pointing 
from the old location to the new location, and a README.fedora 
file could be added stating that in a given number of versions the 
dlopened objects will be removed from %_libdir.
Comment 2 Peter Lemenkov 2008-08-29 14:12:58 EDT
I'll try to review it.
Comment 3 Peter Lemenkov 2008-12-10 15:06:24 EST
Ok, finally found free time to review it. 

BTW, Tom, are you planning to update (at least devel branch) to 2.2.14?
Comment 4 Tom Lane 2008-12-10 17:46:25 EST
I would like to push 2.2.14 into rawhide, but the immediate problem is that upstream decided to remove the "text" driver, which leaves us with a functionality gap.  I haven't decided whether it's worth trying to get that driver packaged separately or not.  I have gotten bugs indicating that people have used it in the past ...
Comment 5 Peter Lemenkov 2009-04-21 10:27:06 EDT
Ok, since 2.2.14. is in Rawhide - here is my review request:

- rpmlint  is not silent:


We may ignore messages, regarding non-versioned so-files in %{_libdir} and zero-length /etc/odbc.ini, however other messages needs fixing. 

* You must convert ChangeLof from iso8859-1 in %prep
* You must remove executable permisson from files, mentioned my rpmlint.

+/- The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. Unfortunately (perhaps, due to historical reasons) GUI module for unixODBC is named as unixODBC-kde, although it has almost nothing to do with KDE (purely Qt-based - the only link between them is DataManager(II) applications, used by KDE afaik). To be honest, I'd like this package to be renamed to something like unixODBC-gui, but the unixODBC package has very long history and even this small change may be relatively painless.

+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included in %doc.
+ The spec file is written in American English. Although I'm not a native english speaker and, therefore, this requirement of Fedora Review Giiudelines always confusing me :).
+ The spec file for the package is be legible.
+ The sources used to build the package are matching the upstream source:

[petro@Sulaco SOURCES]$ md5sum unixODBC-2.2.14.tar.gz*
f47c2efb28618ecf5f33319140a7acd0  unixODBC-2.2.14.tar.gz
f47c2efb28618ecf5f33319140a7acd0  unixODBC-2.2.14.tar.gz_from_srpm
[petro@Sulaco SOURCES]$

+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture.


+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
+ Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, calling ldconfig in %post and %postun.
+ A package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not list any file more than once in the spec file's %files listings.
+/- Permissions on files must be set properly, except those, noted above (easyfix).
+ The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissable content.
+ The package does not contain etremely large chunks of documentation.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application.
+ C header files are in a -devel package.
+ No static libraries.
+ The package does not contains pkgconfig(.pc) files.
+ The devel sub-package requires the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}.
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.

- The sub-package containing GUI applications does include a %{name}.desktop file. Unfortunately, it does NOT properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section.

+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). 
+ All filenames in the package must be valid UTF-8.

So, please, 

* use proper installation procedure of desktop-files ( https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop )
* Suppress rpmlint messages
Comment 6 Peter Lemenkov 2009-06-09 07:31:19 EDT
All changes merged into F-11 and devel branches, so I think we may close this ticket.
Comment 7 Peter Lemenkov 2009-06-09 07:32:03 EDT
Koji scratch build


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