Bug 673485 - Review Request: libldb - A schema-less, ldap like, API and database
Summary: Review Request: libldb - A schema-less, ldap like, API and database
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Matthew Barnes
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2011-01-28 11:47 UTC by Stephen Gallagher
Modified: 2011-02-07 15:49 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version: libldb-0.9.22-8.fc15
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2011-02-07 15:49:44 UTC
Type: ---
mbarnes: fedora-review+
kevin: fedora-cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Stephen Gallagher 2011-01-28 11:47:49 UTC
Spec URL: http://sgallagh.fedorapeople.org/packagereview/libldb/libldb.spec
SRPM URL: http://sgallagh.fedorapeople.org/packagereview/libldb/libldb-0.9.22-7.fc14.src.rpm
Description: An extensible library that implements an LDAP like API to access
remote LDAP servers, or use local tdb databases.

Previously, this was shipped as a subpackage of Samba 4, but it is now seeing its own separate releases from upstream.

Comment 1 Stephen Gallagher 2011-01-28 11:49:45 UTC
Successfully scratch-built in Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2747385

Comment 2 Matthew Barnes 2011-02-03 20:20:12 UTC
rpmlint output:

libldb.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) ldap -> lap, dap, leap
libldb.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tdb -> db, tab, tub

Obviously bogus.

libldb.i686: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libldb.so.0.9.22 exit

I assume this is okay?  Not sure what exit() call it's complaining about.

pyldb.i686: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ldb.so ldb.so

Python C modules => bogus.

libldb.i686: W: no-documentation
pyldb.i686: W: no-documentation
pyldb-devel.i686: W: no-documentation

Didn't see any relevant documentation files in the tarball.  Are there any license or README files from Samba that would be appropriate to include?

Comment 3 Matthew Barnes 2011-02-03 20:44:35 UTC
* MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.

Seems to be the case from the random sample of source files I looked at, but a LICENSE or COPYING file in the top-level directory would be more helpful.

* MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.

The /lib directory contains several libraries which are packaged separately in Fedora, but they don't appear to be used during building nor are they installed. Just wanted to confirm that this is true.


Other:

* Package builds fine under mock in a Rawhide environment.

* The BuildRoot tag isn't needed in current Fedora releases, but I see
  conditionals for older Fedora / RHEL releases.  Not sure which releases
  you're targeting.  Might be needed for older releases, just wanted to
  mention it.

* In the "tools" subpackage I see:

    Requires: libldb >= %{version}-%{release}

  Should that be '=' instead of '>='?  It's '=' in all other subpackages.


Other than these nitpicky things, it looks good to me.

Comment 4 Stephen Gallagher 2011-02-03 21:11:45 UTC
The exit() call it's complaining about isn't actually reachable by libldb. It's compiled in from part of the statically-linked libreplace from samba. So that's safe to ignore.

Upstream didn't package any license or docs in the tarball, so I can't package them in the RPMs. I will ask upstream to include COPYING for the next release.

The libraries in /lib are available to be built in-tree with libldb, but the configure flag --bundled-libraries=NONE forces the build to use system libraries instead.

The BuildRoot I just copied from an older (RHEL 5) spec file for libldb. It's not harmful, but I can remove it if you prefer.

Whoops, you are right about = vs >=

Once you reply about the BuildRoot, I'll spin another version and resubmit. Thanks for the review!

Comment 5 Matthew Barnes 2011-02-03 23:06:48 UTC
As I understand it the BuildRoot tag isn't forbidden, just unnecessary now.  I don't really care either way; I'll leave that one up to you.

I'm satisfied with everything else.

Comment 7 Matthew Barnes 2011-02-04 14:19:01 UTC
Looks good, package approved.

Comment 8 Stephen Gallagher 2011-02-04 14:35:00 UTC
New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: libldb
Short Description: A schema-less, ldap-like API and database
Owners: sgallagh
Branches:
InitialCC:

Comment 9 Stephen Gallagher 2011-02-04 14:35:21 UTC
(Branches was left blank above because only rawhide is requested)

Comment 10 Kevin Fenzi 2011-02-06 22:54:22 UTC
undepreciated the existing orphaned devel branch and made you owner.

Comment 11 Stephen Gallagher 2011-02-07 15:49:44 UTC
Built in rawhide


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