Bug 551914 - Review Request: monodevelop-database - A database plugin for monodevelop
Summary: Review Request: monodevelop-database - A database plugin for monodevelop
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 1244899
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Christian Krause
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2010-01-03 02:23 UTC by Paul F. Johnson
Modified: 2023-09-14 01:19 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2015-07-20 17:57:09 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
chkr: fedora-review?


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Paul F. Johnson 2010-01-03 02:23:26 UTC
SRPM URL: http://www.all-the-johnsons.co.uk/fedora/monodevelop-database-2.2-1.fc13.src.rpm
Description: This addin for monodevelop give support for multiple database systems

Comment 1 Christian Krause 2010-01-24 17:46:07 UTC
Please can you always add a link to the spec file as well? Thanks!

I've roughly scanned over the package and I've seen a couple of issues. It
would be good if they could be fixed first before I do the full complete
review:

- source files differ from upstream:
sources in package:
430571024f88c87d5104121739c6ab7e  SOURCES/monodevelop-database-2.2.tar.bz2
sources from upstream (using the URL which was supplied in the spec file)
5bb1b77221066d57ff3ec58435a24bc3  monodevelop-database-2.2.tar.bz2

- the source URL does not match the link on the download page:
http://ftp.novell.com/pub/mono/sources/monodevelop-database/monodevelop-database-2.2.tar.bz2 (this should fix the previous issue as well)

- package does not build in koji - probably a missing build requirement:
checking for GLIB_SHARP... configure: error: Package requirements (glib-sharp-2.0 >= 2.12.8) were not met:
No package 'glib-sharp-2.0' found
Consider adjusting the PKG_CONFIG_PATH environment variable if you
installed software in a non-standard prefix.
Alternatively, you may set the environment variables GLIB_SHARP_CFLAGS
and GLIB_SHARP_LIBS to avoid the need to call pkg-config.
See the pkg-config man page for more details.
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.Z9lbEA (%build)
    Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.Z9lbEA (%build)

- some rpmlint warnings:
SPECS/monodevelop-database.spec: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 4, tab: line 14)

- directory %{_libdir}/monodevelop/AddIns/MonoDevelop.Database should be included in the package

Comment 3 Paul F. Johnson 2010-02-02 20:04:27 UTC
SRPM URL:
http://www.all-the-johnsons.co.uk/fedora/monodevelop-database-2.2-3.fc13.src.rpm
SPEC : http://www.all-the-johnsons.co.uk/fedora/monodevelop-database.spec

Fixes the above issues and gettext problem

Comment 4 Christian Krause 2010-02-09 22:41:58 UTC
I've looked at the new package and I've observed the following issues:

1. This packages suffers from the same problem with the moved locales as monodevelop-boo: The translations are not found anymore at all.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=551911#c5

2. There are a couple of minor rpmlint warnings (typos, lines too long etc., tabs vs. spaces, ...) (no-binary, no-documentation etc. are false positives, they don't need to be fixed)

Please can you fix both of the problems before I do the full official review? Thanks!

Comment 5 Paul F. Johnson 2010-02-13 14:36:07 UTC
SRPM URL:
http://www.all-the-johnsons.co.uk/fedora/monodevelop-database-2.2-4.fc13.src.rpm
SPEC : http://www.all-the-johnsons.co.uk/fedora/monodevelop-database.spec

Locales problem fixed (same fix as MD-boo)

Comment 6 Christian Krause 2010-02-17 21:53:05 UTC
Same issues as reported for monodevelop-boo:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=551911#c9

1. %lang fix does not work
2. minor rpmlint warnings

Comment 8 Paul F. Johnson 2010-02-20 16:01:05 UTC
SRPM URL:
http://www.all-the-johnsons.co.uk/fedora/monodevelop-database-2.2-5.fc14.src.rpm

Wrong branch....

Comment 9 Christian Krause 2010-02-28 17:19:30 UTC
The language problem is not solved:

1. this line is wrong:
%dir %{_libdir}/monodevelop/AddIns/MonoDevelop.Database/locale/*/LC_MESSAGES/*

The contents of the directories %{_libdir}/monodevelop/AddIns/MonoDevelop.Database/locale/*/LC_MESSAGES are the actual language files and so they should not be added with the %dir tag.

2. If this line is removed then the package will not build since the actual language files are not packaged. However, they are intended to be included in the monodevelop-database.lang file which should be created in the install section. But this file is empty.

That it does not work is a result of a minor typo in the find/sed call:
it should be "monodevelop/AddIns/MonoDevelop.Database/locale" and not "monodevelop/AddIns/Monodevelop.Database/locale" (please note the capital "D" in MonoDevelop in the correct version).

Running rpmlint on the resulting binary rpm also reveals the problem:
monodevelop-database.i686: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/lib/monodevelop/AddIns/MonoDevelop.Database/locale/pt/LC_MESSAGES/monodevelop-database.mo

When you rebuild the package, please also add the minor fixes for the "mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs", the "Addin" vs. "Add-in" typo and the "description-line-too-long" issue in the %description of the devel package.

Comment 11 Christian Krause 2010-03-07 18:55:45 UTC
Thanks for the new pacakge. Here is now the full review:

* rpmlint: TODO
rpmlint SPECS/monodevelop-database.spec SRPMS/monodevelop-database-2.2-6.fc13.src.rpm RPMS/i686/monodevelop-database-*2.2-6.fc*
SPECS/monodevelop-database.spec:39: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 39, tab: line 4)
monodevelop-database.src:39: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 39, tab: line 4)
monodevelop-database.i686: E: no-binary
monodevelop-database.i686: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
monodevelop-database.i686: W: no-documentation
monodevelop-database-devel.i686: W: no-documentation
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings.

- no-binary, no-documentation and only-non-binary-in-usr-lib are
false positives (but you could probably package the Changelog as %doc in
the main package)
- mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs should be fixed

* naming: OK
- name matches upstream
- spec file name matches package name

* sources: OK
- md5sum: 430571024f88c87d5104121739c6ab7e  monodevelop-database-2.2.tar.bz2
- sources matches upstream
- Source0 tag ok
- spectool -g  works

* binaries in upstream sources: TODO
find -name '*.dll'
 ./contrib/MySql/MySql.Data.dll
- to prevent that this assembly accidentally leaks into the binary
package, please delete it in the %prep section

* License: TODO
- License in spec file does _not_ match the actual license
spec file: GPLv2+
COPYING, sources: MIT

* package containing *.pc files must "Requires: pkgconfig": OK

* spec file written in English and legible: minor TODOs
- the %description of the devel package should be rephrased a little bit:
"Database Add-in for MonoDevelop. Development package.

The %{name}-devel package contains development files
for %{name}."
Probably the last sentence would be sufficient.

- please split the very long line of the BuildRequires so that it fit into
80 characters for better readability

- please append a "/" to the URL to get a 100% correct URL ;-)


* compilation: TODO
- does not build in koji (dist-f14) for x86_64
- since this project uses a standard autotools-based configure script, 
please use %configure

* BuildRequires: OK

* locales handling: OK

* ldconfig in %post and %postun: OK (n/a)

* package owns all directories that it creates: OK

* %files section: OK

* no files listed twice in %files: OK

* file permissions: TODO
- %defattr used
- *.mo files are executable, but should have permissions 644
- *.dll files are not executable, however the current convention is, that they should be executable, too

* %clean section: OK

* macro usage: OK

* code vs. content: OK, code only

* main package should not contain development related parts: OK

* large documentation into subpackage: OK (n/a)

* header files in -devel subpackage: OK (n/a)

* static libraries in -static package: OK (n/a)

* *.so link in -devel package: OK (n/a)

* devel package requires base package using fully versioned dependency: OK

* packages must not contain *.la files: OK

* GUI applications must provide *.desktop file: OK (n/a)

* packages must not own files/dirs already owned by other packages: OK

* rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT at the beginning of %install: OK

* all filenames UTF-8: OK

* functional test: OK
- only roughly tested that some menus and dialog boxes can be opened correctly

* debuginfo sub-package: OK (n/a)

Comment 12 Claudio Rodrigo Pereyra DIaz 2010-06-01 16:09:28 UTC
I try use the spec file to make the rpm for f13 x86_64 and I have some problems with language files.

I change line 39 in spec file:

Before:
find . -name Makefile.in -or -name Makefile.am -or -name \*.pc.in \

After:
find . -name Makefile.in -or -name Makefile.am -or -name configure -or -name configure.in -or -name \*.pc.in \

Then the build of rpm works, and I tested installing the rpm in my system.

I hope this help for future.

Comment 13 Claudio Rodrigo Pereyra DIaz 2010-06-19 00:04:20 UTC
I repackage monodevelop-database to update upstream version 2.4

Spec URL: http://elsupergomez.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/monodevelop-database.spec
SRPM URL:
http://elsupergomez.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/monodevelop-database-2.4-1.fc13.src.rpm

Please review

FE-NEEDSPONSOR

Thanks!

Comment 14 Paul F. Johnson 2010-06-20 00:13:45 UTC
#12 the configure things are patched instead of using the find magic...

Comment 15 Christian Krause 2011-06-07 20:45:41 UTC
Paul, are you still interested in getting this package reviewed?

Claudio, if you want to take over this review, I think the best way would be if
you create a new Review Request.

Comment 16 Claudio Rodrigo Pereyra DIaz 2011-08-29 16:00:46 UTC
Ok, I want to verify the spec and src.rpm for FC14 and FC15 and then, I will open a new request

Comment 17 Claudio Rodrigo Pereyra DIaz 2015-07-20 17:57:09 UTC

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1244899 ***

Comment 18 Red Hat Bugzilla 2023-09-14 01:19:14 UTC
The needinfo request[s] on this closed bug have been removed as they have been unresolved for 1000 days


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