Spec URL: ftp://ftp.uni-siegen.de/pub/review/postgresql-plparrot.spec SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.uni-siegen.de/pub/review/postgresql-plparrot-0.03-1.fc13.src.rpm Description: PL/Parrot is the Parrot Virtual Machine, embedded into the PostgreSQL relational database. This means that any Parrot language has the opportunity to become a PostgreSQL Procedural Language (PL). The rpmlint output for RPMs, SRPM and spec file is without errors and warnings. Successful F13 scratch build URL: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2468833 Successful F14 scratch build URL: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2468842
$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/*.rpm postgresql-plparrot-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. $
You've a tiny mistake in your *.spec file. The correct way should be: make CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" This mistake causes the result posted in comment #1. According to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Parallel_make, you should use parallel make where ever possible. I tried this and it does not work, so please add e.g. the following comment before the "make" call: # No %{?_smp_mflags}, parallel build clean
Eh, I meant "not parallel build clean" of course...
May you explain please, why you would need postgresql-server, parrot and parrot-tools as build requirements? From my point of view, postgresql-server doesn't make any sense at buildtime. And parrot is a dependency of -devel; but why would you need parrot-tools as well? I removed the previously three mentioned packages from the BuildRequires and rebuild still works for me. Shouldn't the runtime requirement be postgresql-server rather postgresql? I might be wrong, but the parrot extension is only useful for server, right? I think, the group "Applications/Databases" makes more sense, given that 3+ other postgresql packages being another pl/something use this group. You might want to remove TODO file from %doc, as this doesn't make that much sense to users. In most cases, a TODO file is a reminder for developers... And %{_datadir}/pgsql/contrib/plparrot.sql doesn't seem to be the right place; %{_datadir}/pgsql/contrib/ isn't owned by any package. Beside of this, other similar packages are doing something like %{_datadir}/%{name}/plparrot.sql in such a case - which seems here to be suitable, too. I'm wondering about your Source0 specification a bit. Why do you use ftp://ftp.uni-siegen.de/pub/plparrot/plparrot-%{version}.tar.gz rather http://github.com/downloads/leto/plparrot/plparrot-%{version}.tar.gz which seems to be the official upstream URL?
Fedora Legal might want to correct me, but I don't see a proper licensing in the upstream sources. There is only a pristine LICENSE file containing the Artistic 2.0 license. But none of the source code files contains a licensing header nor can I find a statement telling that the software is Artistic 2.0. Tom, may you enlight us here, please?
The specfile (postgres-plparrot.spec) is linked to the new SPEC file: ftp://ftp.uni-siegen.de/pub/review/postgresql-plparrot.spec.2 The URL of the new SRPM is: ftp://ftp.uni-siegen.de/pub/review/postgresql-plparrot-0.03-2.fc13.src.rpm Things that are not yet fixed with the new second release are: - place of plparrot.sql - licensing in upstream
I would strongly recommend that the upstream properly indicate the license on each and every source file, but the inclusion of LICENSE in the tarball (and in source control) seems to make it clear that it is their intent for this code to be licensed as Artistic 2.0. Also, I do not see any evidence that implies that this code has been copied from any other source, or that any other licenses are in play but undocumented. Please ask upstream to do the following: * Indicate the license is Artistic 2.0 in some documentation (README would be fine) * Indicate the license in all of the source code files: (Something like this is sufficient: "This code is available under the terms of the Artistic 2.0 license. For full license details, see LICENSE.") However, we'll operate on good faith here and assume Artistic 2.0 is correct. Lifting FE-Legal.
A typo is fixed in: The specfile (postgres-plparrot.spec) is linked to the new SPEC file: ftp://ftp.uni-siegen.de/pub/review/postgresql-plparrot.spec.3 The URL of the new SRPM is: ftp://ftp.uni-siegen.de/pub/review/postgresql-plparrot-0.03-3.fc13.src.rpm
- changed requires from postgresql to postgresql-contrib The specfile (postgres-plparrot.spec) is linked to the new SPEC file: ftp://ftp.uni-siegen.de/pub/review/postgresql-plparrot.spec.4 The URL of the new SRPM is: ftp://ftp.uni-siegen.de/pub/review/postgresql-plparrot-0.03-4.fc13.src.rpm
We got a new tar-file from upstream with more licensing information. That fix the last open point. The specfile (postgres-plparrot.spec) is linked to the new SPEC file: ftp://ftp.uni-siegen.de/pub/review/postgresql-plparrot.spec.5 The URL of the new SRPM is: ftp://ftp.uni-siegen.de/pub/review/postgresql-plparrot-0.04-1.fc13.src.rpm Scratch build URLs with the new source are: F-13: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2548126 F-14: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2548131 F-15: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2548136 The rpmlint output of the spec file, binary rpm, source rpm and debuginfo rpm is without warnings and errors.
Okay, here we go: [ DONE ] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/postgresql-plparrot-* 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ [ OK ] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines [ OK ] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption [ OK ] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines [ OK ] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines [ OK ] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license [ OK ] MUST: 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 [ OK ] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English [ OK ] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible [ OK ] MUST: 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 -> e327fe8a16a40f7d6e58064fbeed44b7 plparrot-0.04.tar.gz -> e327fe8a16a40f7d6e58064fbeed44b7 plparrot-0.04.tar.gz.1 -> a74d86882c86d7149950e4fb4a6a9d3fc8b5dce6 plparrot-0.04.tar.gz -> a74d86882c86d7149950e4fb4a6a9d3fc8b5dce6 plparrot-0.04.tar.gz.1 [ OK ] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture [ N/A ] MUST: 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 [ OK ] MUST: 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 [ N/A ] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden [ N/A ] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun [ OK ] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries [ N/A ] MUST: 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 [ OK ] MUST: 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 [ OK ] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations) [ OK ] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line [ OK ] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros [ OK ] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content [ N/A ] MUST: 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) [ OK ] MUST: 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 [ N/A ] Header files must be in a -devel package [ N/A ] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package [ N/A ] MUST: If a package ontains 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 [ N/A ] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} [ N/A ] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built [ N/A ] MUST: 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 [ OK ] 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 [ OK ] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8 I've one minor thing, which should be changed: I think, you should additionally add "Requires: postgresql-server" - or does this module make any sense without having postgresql-server installed on the same machine? But from my point of view this is a minor change which can be performed after the GIT import in the VCS. Beside of the minor issue above, the spec file from comment #10 looks fine to me now, thus: APPROVED.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: postgresql-plparrot Short Description: A PostgreSQL procedural language for the Parrot virtual machine Owners: gerd Branches: f13 f14 el6 InitialCC: gerd
Git done (by process-git-requests).
postgresql-plparrot-0.04-2.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/postgresql-plparrot-0.04-2.fc14
postgresql-plparrot-0.04-2.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/postgresql-plparrot-0.04-2.fc13
postgresql-plparrot-0.04-2.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update postgresql-plparrot'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/postgresql-plparrot-0.04-2.fc13
postgresql-plparrot-0.04-2.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
postgresql-plparrot-0.04-2.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.