SRPM: http://netbsd.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/maatkit-1972-2.el5.src.rpm SPEC: http://netbsd.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/maatkit.spec Description: This toolkit contains essential command-line utilities for MySQL, such as a table checksum tool and query profiler. It provides missing features such as checking slaves for data consistency, with emphasis on quality and scriptability.
rpmlint doesn't like the license "GPLv2 or Artistic". As this seems to be a missing license in rpmlint / the Fedora license page I have opened bz #457486 against rpmlint.
Two issues so far: 1. the backticks in perl(:MODULE_COMPAT... should be replaced by <code></code> to make it more readable (and compliant to the perl packaging guidelines). 2. the resulting package doesn't install under r9/f10 - the requires needs to be changed to perl(DBD::mysql)
(In reply to comment #2) > Two issues so far: > > 1. the backticks in perl(:MODULE_COMPAT... should be replaced by <code></code> > to make it more readable (and compliant to the perl packaging guidelines). That certainly won't work, and seems to me like an issue with wiki formatting conversion when replacing moin with mediawiki. I've told spot to fix it. > 2. the resulting package doesn't install under r9/f10 - the requires needs to > be changed to perl(DBD::mysql) Thanks for pointing that out! Fixed package: SRPM: http://netbsd.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/maatkit-1972-3.el5.src.rpm SPEC: http://netbsd.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/maatkit.spec
Ping?
<sponsor hat> Sven, FYI, it's best to not let updates to reviews sit more than two weeks. If for some reason you're unable to complete the review, it's best to unassign it from your self so it's clear what's going on and another reviewer can be sought. </sponsor hat> Lubomir, if need be, I can finish this. -J
Sorry. In my head this review had the status 'waiting for packager' when in reality it really is 'packager waiting for reviewer'. I'll work on this tonight.
If I had a nickel for every time I'd done that. . .
Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Tested on: devel/x86_64 [x] Rpmlint output: source RPM: empty binary RPM:empty [x] Package is not relocatable. [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. License: GPLv2 or Artistic [x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. SHA1SUM of package: dc4110317c8c9e0c0bc8b53998cbd0b40048fd73 SOURCES/maatkit-1972.tar.gz [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [-] The spec file handles locales properly. [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x] Package must own all directories that it creates. [x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x] Permissions on files are set properly. [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. [x] Package consistently uses macros. [x] Package contains code, or permissable content. [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la). [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. === SUGGESTED ITEMS === [!] Latest version is packaged. [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Tested on: devel/x86_64 [?] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x] Package functions as described. [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct. [-] File based requires are sane. Maatkit-2442 has been released in the meantime. I have tried building a 2442 using the submitted specfile and that rpm also passes all tests, so I suggest bumping the version to the current release. Not a reason to hold up the review though - so: APPROVED
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: maatkit Short Description: Essential command-line utilities for MySQL Owners: lkundrak Branches: F-9 F-10 My sincere apologies to Sven Lankes for not acting on this for so long.
cvs done.
Whoops, forgot this one. Package change Request ======================= Package Name: maatkit Branches: EL-5
Imported and built. Thanks for review and CVS!