$ rpmlint libgda5-5.0.3-1.fc18.src.rpm 
> 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

$ rpmlint x86_64/*.rpm
> libgda5-bdb.x86_64: W: no-documentation
> libgda5-bdb-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ndb -> db, nib, nab
> libgda5-bdb-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
> libgda5-java.x86_64: W: no-documentation
> libgda5-java-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
> libgda5-ldap.x86_64: W: no-documentation
> libgda5-ldap-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
> libgda5-mdb.x86_64: W: no-documentation
> libgda5-mdb-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
> libgda5-mysql.x86_64: W: no-documentation
> libgda5-mysql-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
> libgda5-postgres.x86_64: W: no-documentation
> libgda5-postgres-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
> libgda5-sqlcipher.x86_64: W: no-documentation
> libgda5-sqlcipher-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
> libgda5-sqlite.x86_64: W: no-documentation
> libgda5-sqlite-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
> libgda5-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gda-list-server-op
> libgda5-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gda-list-config-5.0
> libgda5-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gda-sql
> libgda5-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gda-test-connection-5.0
> libgda5-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gda-sql-5.0
> libgda5-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gda-list-config
> libgda5-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gda-list-jdbc-providers-5.0
> libgda5-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gda-control-center-5.0
> libgda5-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gda-list-server-op-5.0
> libgda5-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gda-browser-5.0
> libgda5-ui.x86_64: W: no-documentation
> libgda5-ui-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
> libgda5-ui-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gdaui-demo-5.0
> libgda5-web.x86_64: W: no-documentation
> libgda5-web-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
> 24 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 32 warnings.

The no-documentation warning could be easily ignored, manpages would be nice to have but it's not a blocker.

> BuildRequires:    unique-devel >= 1.1.6
Shouldn't this be unique3 rather? Also, configure.ac references no libunique, is that really necessary?

> BuildRequires:    gnome-keyring-devel
> BuildRequires:    libgnome-keyring-devel
Duplicate BR, only use libgnome-keyring-devel

> BuildRequires:    libtool automake autoconf
Not needed probably, I don't see any traces of automake files modifications

Explicit require of libgcrypt-devel would be nice, it's referenced from configure as well.

> BuildRequires:    gtk-doc scrollkeeper intltool gettext flex bison perl(XML::Parser)
Are flex and bison really necessary?


Note: some header files in the -devel package reference header files which should ideally belong to plugins. Let's keep them all in the common -devel package.

Note: builds fine in koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3914490

Thanks, I cleaned the BR accordingly to your previous comments. For bison and flex, they are required for the sql parser (libgda/sql-parser)

updated spec and src.rpm:
Spec URL: http://hguemar.fedorapeople.org/review/libgda5.spec
SRPM URL: http://hguemar.fedorapeople.org/review/libgda5-5.0.3-2.fc16.src.rpm

Most other libraries use one -devel package and only split up various binary packages. In here I see libgda5-devel, libgda5-ui-devel, libgda5-sqlite-devel, libgda5-bdb-devel, libgda5-ldap-devel, libgda5-sqlcipher-devel, libgda5-web-devel, libgda5-postgres-devel, libgda5-mdb-devel, and libgda5-java-devel. This is making the spec file a lot more complex than it needs to be.

Wouldn't it be easier to just merge all these together into one -devel? Also see how Debian: http://packages.debian.org/source/sid/libgda5 and openSUSE: https://build.opensuse.org/package/view_file?file=libgda.spec&package=libgda&project=openSUSE%3AFactory do the split. They both have just one -devel package.

I checked the pkg-config modules, and it seems that providers only require the base one, so it makes sense regrouping them with the main one.

I won't merge the *-ui-devel into the main *-devel subpackage since it would also pull the whole UI stuff.
Debian => they don't build the UI parts, so this issue is irrelevant to them.
openSUSE => they didn't and i disagree with them here.
openSUSE also ship separately:
* GObject introspection stuff (against Fedora common practices)
* libgda-{reports,xslt} libraries which pull libxml2 and libxslt, the former is commonly installed, the latter is a small add-on library of the former. I chose that it was not worth the hassle to ship them separately. I might reconsider this, if someone thinks they should.

updated spec and src.rpm:
Spec URL: http://hguemar.fedorapeople.org/review/libgda5.spec
SRPM URL: http://hguemar.fedorapeople.org/review/libgda5-5.0.3-3.fc17.src.rpm

Is it really necessary to have parallel installable libgda / libgda5 packages? Can't we just update the existing libgda package to 5.x and rebuild deps against the new version?

A quick repoquery indicates that the following packages requires libgda:

  anjuta glom gnome-python2-gda gtranslator libgdamm

With the exception of gnome-python2-gda (a subpackage of gnome-python2-extras), I believe these should all build fine with libgda 5.x. And gnome-python2-gda can just be killed off; nothing uses this any more.

I can help with some provenpackager action to get this done for F18, if needed.

libgda was updated to 5.x instead as there weren't many deps and no remaining requirement for compatibility