Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 176653
Summary: | Review Request: python-sqlite2 | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Dawid Gajownik <gajownik> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Chris Chabot <chabotc> |
Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | David Lawrence <dkl> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | chabotc, fedora-extras-list |
Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | Reopened |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2006-08-29 06:16:19 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: | |||
Bug Depends On: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 163779, 176614 |
Description
Dawid Gajownik
2005-12-28 17:28:40 UTC
May someone take a look at this package, please? This dependency is blocking gajim update. I'll give it a spin, changing to FE-REVIEW Licence: Can't comment on but if thats the licence they specify then who are we to complain? Looking at http://www.zlib.net/zlib_license.html its more then free enough :-) Package name: normally you would follow the upstream naming, but given that the Core package is called python-sqlite calling it python-sqlite2 is the proper thing to do to avoid confusion Personally i'd make the identation of the Requires: line the same as of the other header fields, but thats my perfectionistic nature :-) Shouldn't sqlite-devel >= 3.0.0 be in the build requires for clarity? - rpmlint output: W: python-sqlite2 invalid-license zlib/libpng As discussed above, i think its safe to ignore, we don't get to choose the licence, authors do that - Package follows naming guidelines - Specfile is in %{name} format - Follows PackagingGuidelines - Licence is Opensource - License field in the package spec file matches the actual license - Incluses licence from source tarbal - In american english - And legible - md5sum matches with upstream download, and specfile url + d/l entry is valid - Build successfully on atleast i386 (tested) into binary rpm - Buildrequires is valid, but misses sqlite-devel (>= 3.0.0) entry! Above makes build in mock build fail with: In file included from src/module.c:24: src/connection.h:32:21: error: sqlite3.h: No such file or directory ... etc etc ... - Has no .so or locales so no macro's needed for it - Owns directories it created - No duplicate files - Has proper %clean section - Uses macro's consitently (as far as aplicable, pythoning is not done thru %configure, etc) - Contains permisable code - %doc doesn't contain package critical files to operate - No header files or static / .so libs or pkgfiles - No gui so no need for .desktop files Please correct the buildrequires error so i can verify it builds cleanly in mock, once thats working i think we are done (In reply to comment #3) > Personally i'd make the identation of the Requires: line the same as of the > other header fields, but thats my perfectionistic nature :-) I also put spaces in my other spec files but this one is exception -- I wanted to make this line fit in 80 characters wide terminal. > Shouldn't sqlite-devel >= 3.0.0 be in the build requires for clarity? Aghh, I checked dependencies with fedora-rmdevelrpms script but I must have forgotten about adding BR to the spec file. I put only âBuildRequires: sqlite-develâ because on FC3+ sqlite package is in version 3.1.2. > Please correct the buildrequires error so i can verify it builds cleanly in > mock, once thats working i think we are done Done. http://pmail.pl/~raven/python-sqlite2.spec http://pmail.pl/~raven/python-sqlite2-2.0.5-2.src.rpm (sorry that it took me so long -- I had problems with finding webserver) Nock builds cleanly and BuildRequires is peachy perfect. Thanks for solving those last issues All the other items from last review list still apply the same (all correct). FE-APPROVED Thanks for the review! Package was built correctly in fedora-development-extras. |