[Bug 226515] Merge Review: unixODBC

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226515





--- Comment #5 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com>  2009-04-21 10:27:06 EDT ---
Ok, since 2.2.14. is in Rawhide - here is my review request:

- rpmlint  is not silent:

http://peter.fedorapeople.org/stuff/unixodbc_rpmlint.log

We may ignore messages, regarding non-versioned so-files in %{_libdir} and
zero-length /etc/odbc.ini, however other messages needs fixing. 

* You must convert ChangeLof from iso8859-1 in %prep
* You must remove executable permisson from files, mentioned my rpmlint.

+/- The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
Unfortunately (perhaps, due to historical reasons) GUI module for unixODBC is
named as unixODBC-kde, although it has almost nothing to do with KDE (purely
Qt-based - the only link between them is DataManager(II) applications, used by
KDE afaik). To be honest, I'd like this package to be renamed to something like
unixODBC-gui, but the unixODBC package has very long history and even this
small change may be relatively painless.

+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
+ 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.
+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included
in %doc.
+ The spec file is written in American English. Although I'm not a native
english speaker and, therefore, this requirement of Fedora Review Giiudelines
always confusing me :).
+ The spec file for the package is be legible.
+ The sources used to build the package are matching the upstream source:

[petro at Sulaco SOURCES]$ md5sum unixODBC-2.2.14.tar.gz*
f47c2efb28618ecf5f33319140a7acd0  unixODBC-2.2.14.tar.gz
f47c2efb28618ecf5f33319140a7acd0  unixODBC-2.2.14.tar.gz_from_srpm
[petro at Sulaco SOURCES]$

+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture.

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1311282

+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
+ Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files
(not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, calling
ldconfig in %post and %postun.
+ A package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not list any file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
+/- Permissions on files must be set properly, except those, noted above
(easyfix).
+ 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 permissable content.
+ The package does not contain etremely large chunks of documentation.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
+ C header files are in a -devel package.
+ No static libraries.
+ The package does not contains pkgconfig(.pc) files.
+ The devel sub-package requires the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}.
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.

- The sub-package containing GUI applications does include a %{name}.desktop
file. Unfortunately, it does NOT properly installed with desktop-file-install
in the %install section.

+ 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 the package must be valid UTF-8.


So, please, 

* use proper installation procedure of desktop-files (
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop )
* Suppress rpmlint messages

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.