Spec URL: http://5dollarwhitebox.org/fedora/drizzle7.spec SRPM URL: http://5dollarwhitebox.org/fedora/drizzle7-2011.03.11-2.fc14.src.rpm Description: Drizzle is a transactional SQL92 compliant relational database, geared towards a plugin based architecture.
It should be noted that I am the upstream maintainer of the official drizzle rpm packages as well.
OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (GPLv2) OK - License field in spec matches NO - License file included in package see below OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: 39731f245d12f311f1c149bfeee22a13 drizzle7-2011.03.11.tar.gz 39731f245d12f311f1c149bfeee22a13 drizzle7-2011.03.11.tar.gz OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section for EPEL. OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package has rm -rf %{buildroot} at top of %install NO - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. see below OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. OK - Package obey's FHS standard No - No rpmlint output. no errors on srpm, couldn't test rpms OK - final provides and requires are sane. SHOULD Items: No - Should build in mock. failed mock build rawhide i386, epel 5, No - Should build on all supported archs see failed build issues OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version OK - Should not use file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin 1) No license file included in package 2) Failed mock build on rawhide i386, epel 5, rawhide x86_64 rawhide 386 make[2]: *** [plugin/catalog/plugin_libcatalog_plugin_la-engine.lo] Error 1 make[2]: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/drizzle7-2011.03.11' make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/drizzle7-2011.03.11' make: *** [all] Error 2 error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.L77ZYJ (%build) RPM build errors: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.L77ZYJ (%build) rawhide x86_64 make[2]: *** [plugin/catalog/plugin_libcatalog_plugin_la-engine.lo] Error 1 make[2]: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/drizzle7-2011.03.11' make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/drizzle7-2011.03.11' make: *** [all] Error 2 RPM build errors: error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.FLvz1l (%build) Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.FLvz1l (%build)
Do you need to be sponsored? Are you going to fix this package build?
No, I do not need a sponsor... and apologize for the long delay in following up with this. I have been working on ironing out some issue upstream and then updating with the latest version 2011.03.13. I am nearly there, however due to a bug tests are failing on F15 which I'm trying to work out first. I should be able to update this soon.
Any news here?
There has been a shortage of development resources upstream... meaning, development has slowed drastically as of several months ago. There have been no followup releases to the stable branch which has kept me from moving forward with this package in Fedora/EPEL. The next GA release is around the corner so it makes sense just to wait for that release.
any news? .. I saw 7.1-RC was release a few days ago ..
We've been working (upstream) to get packaging (rpm/deb) included in the continuous integration environment, ensuring that future releases don't continue to break packaging and/or fail on Fedora/EPEL builds specifically. With this in place we should be able to start pushing forward with drizzle in Fedora... however there was also talk of changing the naming convention (again upstream). Currently the source name is 'drizzle7' and future major versions would be 'drizzle7.1' which causes issues for us downstream... so I am waiting for a definitive answer as to how releases will be managed... as we don't want a seperate package review/source/etc for every major drizzle release moving forward.
Drizzle7 upstream seems defunct. Maybe this bug can be closed then?