Spec URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/libiodbc/libiodbc.spec SRPM URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/libiodbc/libiodbc-3.52.6-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: The iODBC Driver Manager is a free implementation of the SAG CLI and ODBC compliant driver manager which allows developers to write ODBC compliant applications that can connect to various databases using appropriate backend drivers. Needed for newer versions of soprano, for virtuoso support (for kde-4.3) Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1392918
NOTE: iodbc-config has issues, multilib conflicts, hard-coded references to unpackaged static libs, libtool archives. Not sure how best to address that... maybe rewrite to use pkg-config(?).
-L/usr/lib64 resp. -L/usr/lib can just be patched out, it's the default anyway. --static-libs and --libtool-libs should just be removed entirely. If software is trying to use them, then we can hack the script to just do the same as for --libs.
Created attachment 346558 [details] libiodbc-3.52.6-multilib.patch This patch should work (apply with -p0).
cool, worksforme. Spec URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/libiodbc/libiodbc.spec SRPM URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/libiodbc/libiodbc-3.52.6-2.fc11.src.rpm %changelog * Thu Jun 04 2009 Rex Dieter <rdieter> 3.52.6-2 - iodbc-config multilib patch
######################################### # MUST ITEMS ######################################### --> rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. Status: *** FAIL *** Additional comments: [lvillani@localhost Download]$ rpmlint libiodbc-3.52.6-2.fc12.i586.rpm libiodbc-debuginfo-3.52.6-2.fc12.i586.rpm libiodbc-devel-3.52.6-2.fc12.i586.rpm libiodbc.i586: W: summary-not-capitalized iODBC Driver Manager libiodbc-debuginfo.i586: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/libiodbc-3.52.6/include/iodbcunix.h libiodbc-devel.i586: W: summary-not-capitalized header files and libraries for iODBC development 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. The first and the last line can be ignored, the package is called that way I'm not sure about spurious-executable-perm in debuginfo package... --> The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines Status: PASS --> The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. Status: PASS --> The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines Status: PASS --> The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. Status: PASS --> The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. Status: PASS --> 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 must be included in %doc. Status: PASS --> The spec file must be written in American English. Status: PASS --> The spec file for the package MUST be legible. Status: PASS --> The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. Status: *** FAIL *** Additional comments: [lvillani@localhost SPECS]$ md5sum libiodbc-3.52.6.tar.gz ../SOURCES/libiodbc-3.52.6.tar.gz 761ad547467bd63ac0b2b4f3ee4b5afb libiodbc-3.52.6.tar.gz e218721832e28fff0259bffa137626c1 ../SOURCES/libiodbc-3.52.6.tar.gz --> The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. Status: PASS --> If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. Status: PASS --> All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. Status: PASS --> The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. Status: PASS --> Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. Status: PASS --> If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. Status: PASS --> A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. Status: PASS --> A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. Status: PASS --> Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. Status: *** FAIL *** Additional comments: See MUST item #1 --> Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). Status: PASS --> Each package must consistently use macros. Status: PASS --> The package must contain code, or permissable content. Status: PASS --> Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). Status: PASS --> If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. Status: PASS --> Header files must be in a -devel package. Status: PASS --> Static libraries must be in a -static package. Status: PASS Additional comments: No static libraries --> Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). Status: PASS --> If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. Status: PASS --> In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} Status: PASS --> Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. Status: PASS --> Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. Status: *** FAIL *** Additional comments: The admin subpackage includes what seems to be a GTK application but I don't see any .desktop file. --> Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. Status: PASS --> At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). Status: PASS --> All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. Status: PASS ######################################### # SHOULD ITEMS ######################################### --> If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. Status: PASS --> The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. Status: *** FAIL *** --> The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Status: PASS --> The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Status: PASS Additional comments: The scratch build(s) confirm that it builds on all supported architectures --> The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. Status: *** FAIL *** Additional comments: It's a library, I need a project that links to this library to test it... --> If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. Status: PASS --> Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. Status: PASS --> The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb.If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. Status: PASS Generated with reviewtool 0.0.1
Can you also capitalize name, version and release tags please?
Spec URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/libiodbc/libiodbc.spec SRPM URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/libiodbc/libiodbc-3.52.6-3.fc11.src.rpm %changelog * Thu Jun 04 2009 Rex Dieter <rdieter> 3.52.6-3 - capitalize Name,Summary,Version tags - -devel: capitalize Summary - fix spurious permissions on header files - refresh upstream source - -admin,-devel: add %%defattr(...)
- Capitalize tags: OK - rpmlint: spurious-executable-perm fixed. OK - Upstream sources: OK - .desktop file: the admin interface is busted.. no need to ship the .desktop file for now -> OK I installed the package on F11 i586 with no problems. Ship it :-)
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: libiodbc Short Description: iODBC Driver Manager Owners: rdieter Branches: F-9 F-10 F-11
CVS done.
imported, built.
libiodbc-3.52.6-4.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libiodbc-3.52.6-4.fc11
libiodbc-3.52.6-4.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libiodbc-3.52.6-4.fc10
libiodbc-3.52.6-4.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
libiodbc-3.52.6-4.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.