Spec URL: http://ispbrasil.com.br/pgsql/mingw32-postgresql.spec SRPM URL: http://ispbrasil.com.br/pgsql/mingw32-postgresql-8.3.5-1snapshot.fc10.src.rpm Description: postgresql compiled by mingw (libpq.dll) and header files. koji scratch build http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1049994 some patch's need's to be merged into upstream, should I cc Tom Lane here ? https://fcp.surfsite.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=thread&topic_id=64290&forum=11&post_id=306080 http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-11/msg00367.php I'm also need help enabling openssl in postgresql with this package I am able to build and run programs linked with libpq http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/static/libpq-build.html this package also depends on secur32.dll mingw32(secur32.dll) is needed by mingw32-postgresql-8.3.5-1snapshot.fc10.noarch wine seems to have this file. [itamar@itamar pg-snap]$ rpm -qf /usr/lib/wine/secur32.dll.so wine-core-1.1.10-1.fc10.i386
Please send any upstream patches to the PostgreSQL mailing list: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/ I will mail Tom Lane myself and ask him if he wants to be CC'd on this bug, but he's quite a busy chap. > this package also depends on secur32.dll > > mingw32(secur32.dll) is needed by > mingw32-postgresql-8.3.5-1snapshot.fc10.noarch We need to add that pseudo-provides to mingw32-filesystem. I'll do this today.
(In reply to comment #1) > I will mail Tom Lane myself and ask him if he wants to > be CC'd on this bug, but he's quite a busy chap. Actually he's already in the CC for the bug.
(In reply to comment #1) > > this package also depends on secur32.dll > > > > mingw32(secur32.dll) is needed by > > mingw32-postgresql-8.3.5-1snapshot.fc10.noarch > > We need to add that pseudo-provides to mingw32-filesystem. > I'll do this today. I've done this now. You will need to adjust the dependencies as follows: branch dependency ---------------------------------------- devel: mingw32-filesystem >= 42 F-10: mingw32-filesystem >= 40-3 EL-5: mingw32-filesystem >= 40-3
I started trying to do this review, but I kept tripping over things: - Package uses %{_mingw32_libdir}/*, see: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/MinGW#Do_not_use_.25.7B_mingw32_bindir.7D.2F.2A_or_.25.7B_mingw32_libdir.7D.2F.2A_in_.25files_section - Spec is missing correct BuildRequires (see Comment #3) - Package contains static libraries: /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libecpg.a /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libecpg_compat.a /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libpgport.a /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libpgtypes.a /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libpostgres.a /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libpq.a See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/MinGW#Static_libraries - Not in sync with rawhide (8.3.6 vs 8.3.5). - Normal postgresql is carrying six patches not found here: Patch1: rpm-pgsql.patch Patch2: postgresql-ac-version.patch Patch3: postgresql-logging.patch Patch4: postgresql-test.patch Patch5: pgtcl-no-rpath.patch Patch6: postgresql-perl-rpath.patch - Built with an entirely different set of configure options I am very uncomfortable with this package as is. I'd really prefer if someone like Tom Lane did the review here.
Well, I know nothing whatever about mingw, let alone packaging for mingw on Fedora, and do not intend to learn about it. So I'm not sure I can contribute much here. I can partially answer spot's question though: the patches we carry in the Fedora postgresql package are things I don't care to upstream because they adapt the software to more-or-less-Fedora-specific issues, like obeying FHS layout or meeting the proscription against using rpath. I'm not sure if any of that is applicable to a mingw build. In general though I think the thrust of his question is good --- you should make this look as much like the regular Fedora postgresql package as you reasonably can. At the very least it seems like having the same set of subpackages is a reasonable expectation. (But leave out PyGreSQL and pgtcl, which really should get split into their own SRPMS, and will be if those packages ever get through review.)
(In reply to comment #4) > I started trying to do this review, but I kept tripping over things: > > - Package uses %{_mingw32_libdir}/*, see: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/MinGW#Do_not_use_.25.7B_mingw32_bindir.7D.2F.2A_or_.25.7B_mingw32_libdir.7D.2F.2A_in_.25files_section Itamar [packager], I'd prefer if the libraries were listed explicitly. We have had problems with libtool "disappearing" libraries, and by listing them explicitly we catch this. > - Spec is missing correct BuildRequires (see Comment #3) > - Package contains static libraries: > /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libecpg.a > /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libecpg_compat.a > /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libpgport.a > /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libpgtypes.a > /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libpostgres.a > /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libpq.a > > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/MinGW#Static_libraries Itamar, are we building this library statically? We certainly shouldn't be - we should build DLLs always. If you need static libraries, then they should go in a separate -static subpackage. > - Not in sync with rawhide (8.3.6 vs 8.3.5). > - Normal postgresql is carrying six patches not found here: > Patch1: rpm-pgsql.patch > Patch2: postgresql-ac-version.patch > Patch3: postgresql-logging.patch > Patch4: postgresql-test.patch > Patch5: pgtcl-no-rpath.patch > Patch6: postgresql-perl-rpath.patch > - Built with an entirely different set of configure options Itamar, all of these should be fixed. We should keep the package as close to the native Fedora package as possible, mainly because it reduces the chance that we are susceptible to different bugs or security errata than the native package. So we benefit from the native package's testing.
(In reply to comment #6) this package contains only libpq (library for connecting to postgresql), like in the postgresql-devel package all patches in the current fedora postgresql package are most related to linux and doesn't make sense here. the version of this package should be 8,4dev, because the version 8.3.6 doesn't build because missing patches something like in the link below. http://git.postgresql.org/?p=postgresql.git&a=search&h=HEAD&st=commit&s=dllwrap backporting these patches to 8.3.6 will be a wast of time. I will post a new src.rpm soon with all other related items fixed.
Oh, I somehow missed the hint in the bug title that this is only supposed to provide libpq and not the whole postgres package. That's a perfectly respectable goal, but I suggest that the package is misnamed in that case. What would happen if someone later wants to package all of postgres for mingw? I think that you should call it mingw32-postgresql-libs and try to make the package contents match the -libs subpackage of the regular postgresql SRPM.
Cross compiled applications are not allowed under the Fedora MinGW rules, only development libraries are within scope. So if someone did want to provide a complete PostgreSQL server cross-compiled, it would not be part of the Fedora packageset, so there is no naming clash problem there.
Just to update people, we are possibly going to drop this package from the Fedora 11 feature requirements. (That does NOT mean dropping the package!) There is discussion going on here: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/fedora-mingw/2009-March/000751.html
I have made some cleanups, and I am still able to build postgresql examples http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.3/interactive/libpq-example.html spec: http://ispbrasil.com.br/pgsql/new/mingw32-postgresql.spec srpm: http://ispbrasil.com.br/pgsql/new/mingw32-postgresql-8.3.5-2snapshot.fc10.src.rpm I need only to fix the version tag,this package is a dev snapshot,since the 8.3.6 tarball doesn't build with fedora-mingw It should be something like 8.4.0-dev, suggestions are welcome.
Just took a quick look at this: - The .dll files should be in %{_mingw32_bindir} instead of %{_mingw32_libdir} (like all the rest of the mingw32 packages) - The .dll.a and .la files need to be packaged in %{_mingw32_libdir} (so they shouldn't be removed) - The header files should also be packaged or else applications can't compile against this library
Ping: Itamar Reis Peixoto
It's been six weeks since that ping. I guess this should be closed soon.
new version 8.4.0 http://ispbrasil.com.br/pgsql/mingw32-postgresql.spec http://ispbrasil.com.br/pgsql/mingw32-postgresql-8.4.0-1.fc11.src.rpm http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1483343
PING Since it's been more than a year with no progress; I guess this bug should be closed soon if there is no response, shouldn't it?
Is there a reason to close it? Someone may pick it up again.
Richard, This is a janitorial work on Fedora Package Review queues, -- http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/ -- in order to identify and close stalled reviews. I'm just following this policy: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews Regards
Does adding NotReady to the Whiteboard help?
If you really want to, fine, but someone will just close notready bugs eventually anyway. Isn't it far easier to find these submitted but abandoned tickets by following the FE-DEADREVIEW tracker anyway?
Itamar Reis Peixoto: do you still wish to maintain this package in Fedora? If so, please update it to the latest postgresql version (8.4.5) and I'll take a look at it
(In reply to comment #21) > Itamar Reis Peixoto: do you still wish to maintain this package in Fedora? If > so, please update it to the latest postgresql version (8.4.5) and I'll take a > look at it ok, I will do it soon
http://ispbrasil.com.br/pgsql/mingw32-postgresql.spec http://ispbrasil.com.br/pgsql/mingw32-postgresql-8.4.5-1.fc14.src.rpm http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2610354
The comments I mentioned earlier still apply to this package: - The .dll files should be in %{_mingw32_bindir} instead of %{_mingw32_libdir} (like all the rest of the mingw32 packages) - The .dll.a and .la files need to be packaged in %{_mingw32_libdir} (so they shouldn't be removed) - The header files should also be packaged or else applications can't compile against this library
Itamar, are you still interested in this package?
Itamar: do you still want us to continue with the review of this package? If so, please update the package so it is based on the new MinGW packaging guidelines (which are valid as of Fedora 17): https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:MinGW If we don't hear anything from you in one week, I'm going to close this review request as per http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews
Abandoned ticket, closing