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 215258
Summary: | Review Request: clucene - A C++ port of Lucene | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Deji Akingunola <dakingun> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Jochen Schmitt <jochen> |
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | Flags: | j:
fedora-cvs+
|
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2006-12-22 03:33:49 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 |
Description
Deji Akingunola
2006-11-13 00:42:14 UTC
Good: + Local Build works fine. + Package contains verbain copy of the license. + Mock build works fine. Bad: - Rpmlint complaints on soure RPM: W: clucene non-standard-group Software Development - Rrplint complaints on binary RPM: W: clucene non-standard-group Software Development E: clucene zero-length /usr/share/doc/clucene-0.9.15/ChangeLog E: clucene library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib/libclucene.so.0.0.0 E: clucene library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib/libclucene.so.0.0.0 E: clucene zero-length /usr/share/doc/clucene-0.9.15/NEWS - Rpmlint complaints on devel RPM: W: clucene-devel summary-ended-with-dot Headers for developing programs that will use clucene. E: clucene-devel only-non-binary-in-usr-lib W: clucene-devel no-documentation - Rpmlint complaints on installed RPM: W: clucene non-standard-group Software Development E: clucene zero-length /usr/share/doc/clucene-0.9.15/ChangeLog E: clucene library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib/libclucene.so.0.0.0 E: clucene library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib/libclucene.so.0.0.0 E: clucene zero-length /usr/share/doc/clucene-0.9.15/NEWS - Cant download source from given URL in Source0 Thanks for the review Jochen. Have fixed the various issues, new files are here; Spec URL: ftp://czar.eas.yorku.ca/pub/clucene/clucene.spec SRPM URL: ftp://czar.eas.yorku.ca/pub/clucene/clucene-0.9.15-2.src.rpm Good: + Rpmlint is quite on source rpm. + Local build works fine. * Rpmlint is quited on the binary rpms. * Local install and uninstall works fine. * Tar ball matches with the upstream version. * build in mock works fine. Bad: - Why does the package the file APACHE.license and COPYING. The Lincennse tag says the LGPL as the license for the package. A clarification may be nice. - Try to run ./cl_test in the test directory in the check stanza. I have try myself and was wondering why cl_test was not generate. Please forward this to the upsteam. - Perhaps the devel rpm should contains some documentation for developers. > Bad: > - Why does the package the file APACHE.license and COPYING. The Lincennse tag > says the LGPL as the license for the package. A clarification may be nice. I guess I can leave out packaging the APACHE.license file since we've already chosen LGPL, the COPYING file provides the clarification you were asking for. Basically that the software includes both APACHE and LGPL licenses and one can choose any of the 2, but the LGPL is preferred and recommended. > - Try to run ./cl_test in the test directory in the check stanza. I have try > myself and was wondering why cl_test was not generate. Please forward this to > the upsteam. I think it's intentional not to build the test stuff by default (IMHO, neither should we do it for Fedora packaging effort). People who are interested in running the test can grab the source (src rpm) and 'make check' in the test directory. > - Perhaps the devel rpm should contains some documentation for developers. > ok, i've packaged those that comes with the software. Spec URL: ftp://czar.eas.yorku.ca/pub/clucene/clucene.spec SRPM URL: ftp://czar.eas.yorku.ca/pub/clucene/clucene-0.9.15-3.src.rpm Hi Jochen, Any reason why we're not moving forward on this? I think, it better to have a %check stanza which conatins the 'make check' statement. This may be halpful to get a minimum QA during any update of the package on the differents plattforms. Ok, I've updated to the latest stable release and added a make check in the build. Spec URL: ftp://czar.eas.yorku.ca/pub/clucene/clucene.spec SRPM URL: ftp://czar.eas.yorku.ca/pub/clucene/clucene-0.9.16a-1.src.rpm God: + Tarball match with upstream version. Bad: - You shuld but INSTALL='%{_bindir}/install -c -p' into the make install line to prevents the timestamps. > Bad:
> - You shuld but INSTALL='%{_bindir}/install -c -p' into the make install line to
> prevents the timestamps.
Is this a new packaging requirement? I've never seen anywhere in the guildelines
where it says this should be done.
(In reply to comment #9) > Is this a new packaging requirement? I've never seen anywhere in the guildelines > where it says this should be done. No, this is not an official requirement, but it may helpfule to preserve the timestamps of the files which will be go unmodified into a package. Please see B/ #174377. Since this is not official, I don't think it should block this being accepted. I've seen the bug you pointed to, but it isn't clear why/how helpful doing that is. Besides, I've rarely seen this INSTALL option purposefully used in the Fedora sphere. OK, I don't want to block you, so you package will be APPROVED. But it will be nice if you can implement my suggestion into your package. Not wanting to argue with you, but I'll point out to you from the B/ #174377 you referred me to (and from your words in comment #10), that using the timestamp option is only necessary for file that go unmodified into the package. And for such files in clucene, you'll noticed I'd already used the copy command with timestamp option (cp -pr) in the rpm spec, so that should be sufficient for this package. Hi Jochen, Would you please go ahead with the approval; a package I'm intending to submit for reviews is waiting on it. Thanks On #12 I have APPROVED !!! your package. On #12 I have APPROVED !!! your package. Oh, thanks. However, you should have changed the blocker bug from FE-REVIEW to FE-ACCEPT (bz #163779). I'm doing so on your behalf now. Sorry, I have forgotten to change to FE-ACCEPT This package appears to have been accepted, imported and built. This bug should be closed NEXTRELEASE. I am going to go ahead and do so. If I am in error, please reopen. Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: clucene New Branches: EL-5 Owners: deji cvs done. Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: clucene New Branches: EL-4 Owners: deji CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py). |