Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 975312
Review Request: libodb - Common ODB runtime library
Last modified: 2013-11-10 01:55:00 EST
Spec URL: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B9bQ41XLJ8QuV2w2cENOeEZiT0E/edit?usp=sharing SRPM URL: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B9bQ41XLJ8QuMUs2M3VaN2w4dzQ/edit?usp=sharing Description: This package contains the common ODB runtime library. Every application that includes code generated by the ODB compiler will need to link to this library. Fedora Account System Username: daveisfera
Unblocking FE-NEEDSPONSOR - I've just sponsored Dave.
The updated files can be found at: Spec URL: http://daveisfera.fedorapeople.org/odb_2.2/specs/libodb.spec SRPM URL: http://daveisfera.fedorapeople.org/odb_2.2/SRPMS/libodb-2.2.3-1.fc19.src.rpm
The original spec file indicated that this depends on odb, but that is not actually the case, so I removed that.
The result of doing a scratch build on f19 can be seen at: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5658677
Now that ODB itself has been approved, this package is ready for review. The current files can be found at: Spec URL: http://daveisfera.fedorapeople.org/odb_2.2/specs/libodb.spec SRPM URL: http://daveisfera.fedorapeople.org/odb_2.2/SRPMS/libodb-2.2.3-1.el6.src.rpm The only output from rpmlint is the following: libodb.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) runtime -> run time, run-time, untimely libodb.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime -> run time, run-time, untimely But that seems to be a valid spelling ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runtime_library ), so I'm guessing that it's actually ok, but is there an "upstream" that I can put in a request for that to be considered a valid spelling?
OK, it looks like the package is in a very good shape. So here is my formal REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable + rpmlint is almost silent sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpmlint ../RPMS/ppc/libodb-* ../SRPMS/libodb-2.2.3-1.fc21.src.rpm libodb.ppc: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) runtime -> run time, run-time, rudiment libodb.ppc: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime -> run time, run-time, rudiment ^^^ false positives libodb.ppc: W: no-documentation ^^^ unfortunately we're experiencing a transition from old and versioned docdir (/use/share/doc/pkgname-1.2.3) towards new unversioned one (/use/share/doc/pkgname). That's why you shouldn't exclude docs within the %files section for now - this will remove docs entirely on F20 and F21 (my working machine upgraded to Fedora 21). libodb.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) runtime -> run time, run-time, rudiment libodb.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime -> run time, run-time, rudiment ^^^ false positives. 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: + The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. + The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. + The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines. + The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (strict GPLv2). + The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included in %doc. Also see my comments above about docdir situation. + The spec file is written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible. + The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum libodb-2.2.3.tar.bz2* 23656d33f6c8c9e3c9f5414476912f524b95a5f54bc3982d2be43f5e43e3b65e libodb-2.2.3.tar.bz2 23656d33f6c8c9e3c9f5414476912f524b95a5f54bc3982d2be43f5e43e3b65e libodb-2.2.3.tar.bz2.1 sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on my PowerPC box. + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. 0 No need to handle locales. + The package stores shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's default paths, and it calls ldconfig in %post and %postun. + The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries. 0 The package is not designed to be relocatable. + The package owns all directories that it creates. + The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. Again see my comment about the docdir situation. + Permissions on files are set properly. + The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + The package consistently uses macros. + The package contains code, or permissible content. 0 No extremely large documentation files. + Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. + Header files are stored in a -devel package. 0 No static libraries. + The pkgconfig(.pc) files are stored in a -devel package. + The library file(s) that end in .so (without suffix) is(are) stored in a -devel package. + The -devel package requires the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} + The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives. 0 Not a GUI application. + The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. + At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. I don't see any issues (apart from versioned/unversioned docdir situation which requires additional work on F-20+ branches), so this package is APPROVED.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: libodb Short Description: Common ODB runtime library from Code Synthesis Owners: daveisfera Branches: el5 el6 f18 f19 f20 InitialCC: peter
> libodb.ppc: W: no-documentation > > ^^^ unfortunately we're experiencing a transition from old and versioned docdir (/use/share/doc/pkgname-1.2.3) towards new unversioned one (/use/share/doc/pkgname). That's why you shouldn't exclude docs within the %files section for now - this will remove docs entirely on F20 and F21 (my working machine upgraded to Fedora 21). I read the wiki about this ( http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/UnversionedDocdirs ), but I wasn't quite sure what exactly I should do to fix this. Should I just remove the excludes I have for the documentation? Or is there something else I need to/should do?
Git done (by process-git-requests).
libodb-2.2.3-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libodb-2.2.3-1.fc18
libodb-2.2.3-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libodb-2.2.3-1.fc19
libodb-2.2.3-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libodb-2.2.3-1.el6
libodb-2.2.3-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libodb-2.2.3-1.fc20
libodb-2.2.3-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libodb-2.2.3-1.el5
libodb-2.2.3-1.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 testing repository.
libodb-2.2.3-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.
libodb-2.2.3-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.
libodb-2.2.3-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.
libodb-2.2.3-1.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository.
libodb-2.2.3-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.