[Bug 1310793] Review Request: unqlite - embedded key/value databasse/engine

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310793



--- Comment #6 from Richard Shaw  ---
A couple of other things to note, the summary in this review request should
match what's in the spec file.

The best "one-liner" I've seen is actually in the description of the github
project, "Transactional Embedded Database Engine"

Also, when making updates per my (or anyone else's) feedback, it's customary to
bump the release and add what you changed to the changelog. That also makes it
easy when you update the SPEC and SRPM links as you can just paste the contents
of the changelog here.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1310793] Review Request: unqlite - embedded key/value databasse/engine

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310793



--- Comment #5 from Paulo Henrique Rodrigues Pinheiro  ---
(In reply to Richard Shaw from comment #4)
> (In reply to Paulo Henrique Rodrigues Pinheiro from comment #3)
> > (In reply to Richard Shaw from comment #2)
> (...)
> > After this, to "silent" rpmlint, I put a strip in make install.
> 
> Not sure what is going on here, I removed the strip command and get a usable
> debuginfo package.

Some issue in my config. In spec I put this line:

%debug_package


And now I get the debuginfo package.



> > > 3c. Since a readme file is provided it should be included in the base
> > > package with %doc.
> > 
> > There's no README.md, only license.txt...
> 
> I just noticed that, I was looking at it in github where there is one. Has
> there just not been a release since it was added?

The stable version is only on site. The github is "just for fun", according
upstream devs. New features are "frozzen" by now.


> Also, just playing around a bit with the Makefile, after removing the strip
> command I added a symbolic link to the library to go in the -devel package:
> 
> ln -rs $(LIBDIR)/$(LIBNAME) $(LIBDIR)/libunqlite.so
> 
> Then added to the spec:
> 
> %files devel
> %{_includedir}/unqlite.h
> %{_libdir}/libunqlite.so
> 
> This is typically needed as a project using this for a dependency wouldn't
> necessarily know about the soversion.

OK


Thanks, now it's good!

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1310793] Review Request: unqlite - embedded key/value databasse/engine

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310793



--- Comment #4 from Richard Shaw  ---
(In reply to Paulo Henrique Rodrigues Pinheiro from comment #3)
> (In reply to Richard Shaw from comment #2)
> 
> > 2. In %build, why is the debug package being disabled? Typically this is
> > only permitted for noarch packages where it doesn't produce anything useful.
> 
> I followed the directions of the documentation* to see if it was a recurring
> problem, but could not make the debug package be generated.
> 
> * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Debuginfo?rd=Packaging/Debuginfo
> 
> After this, to "silent" rpmlint, I put a strip in make install.

Not sure what is going on here, I removed the strip command and get a usable
debuginfo package.


> > 3a. A license file only needs to be included in one package assuming the
> > other requires it (in this case -devel requires the base package)
> 
> OK, I put this because rpmlint give-me "no-documentation" :)

Yes, it's just warning you, since upstream doesn't provide any that's OK.


> > 3c. Since a readme file is provided it should be included in the base
> > package with %doc.
> 
> There's no README.md, only license.txt...

I just noticed that, I was looking at it in github where there is one. Has
there just not been a release since it was added?


> Can I leave rpmlint with these warnings? My output:
> 
> [paulohrpinheiro@localhost SPECS]$ rpmlint unqlite.spec
> ../RPMS/x86_64/unqlite-*
> unqlite.x86_64: W: no-documentation
> unqlite-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
> 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

Yes, that's OK.

Also, just playing around a bit with the Makefile, after removing the strip
command I added a symbolic link to the library to go in the -devel package:

ln -rs $(LIBDIR)/$(LIBNAME) $(LIBDIR)/libunqlite.so

Then added to the spec:

%files devel
%{_includedir}/unqlite.h
%{_libdir}/libunqlite.so

This is typically needed as a project using this for a dependency wouldn't
necessarily know about the soversion.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1310793] Review Request: unqlite - embedded key/value databasse/engine

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310793



--- Comment #3 from Paulo Henrique Rodrigues Pinheiro  ---
(In reply to Richard Shaw from comment #2)
> A quick spec review on my lunch break...
> 

> 1. rpmbuild doesn't care but typically %{pre,post,postun,etc} would be after
> %install

OK


> 2. In %build, why is the debug package being disabled? Typically this is
> only permitted for noarch packages where it doesn't produce anything useful.

I followed the directions of the documentation* to see if it was a recurring
problem, but could not make the debug package be generated.

* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Debuginfo?rd=Packaging/Debuginfo

After this, to "silent" rpmlint, I put a strip in make install.


> 3a. A license file only needs to be included in one package assuming the
> other requires it (in this case -devel requires the base package)

OK, I put this because rpmlint give-me "no-documentation" :)


> 3b. License files should use the %license macro rather than %doc.
> 
> 3c. Since a readme file is provided it should be included in the base
> package with %doc.

There's no README.md, only license.txt...


> So all that to say the base package should be updated to:
> %license license.txt
> %doc README.md


Can I leave rpmlint with these warnings? My output:

[paulohrpinheiro@localhost SPECS]$ rpmlint unqlite.spec
../RPMS/x86_64/unqlite-*
unqlite.x86_64: W: no-documentation
unqlite-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.


> 4. Typo in the description at the beginning of the -devel package.
OK


Thank you. The files are updated in original links:

Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paulohrpinheiro/fedora-rpm-unqlite/master/unqlite.spec

SRPM URL:
https://github.com/paulohrpinheiro/fedora-rpm-unqlite/raw/master/unqlite-1.1.6-1.fc23.src.rpm

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1310793] Review Request: unqlite - embedded key/value databasse/engine

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310793

Richard Shaw  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||hobbes1...@gmail.com



--- Comment #2 from Richard Shaw  ---
A quick spec review on my lunch break...

1. rpmbuild doesn't care but typically %{pre,post,postun,etc} would be after
%install

2. In %build, why is the debug package being disabled? Typically this is only
permitted for noarch packages where it doesn't produce anything useful.

3a. A license file only needs to be included in one package assuming the other
requires it (in this case -devel requires the base package)

3b. License files should use the %license macro rather than %doc.

3c. Since a readme file is provided it should be included in the base package
with %doc.

So all that to say the base package should be updated to:
%license license.txt
%doc README.md

4. Typo in the description at the beginning of the -devel package.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1310793] Review Request: unqlite - embedded key/value databasse/engine

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310793



--- Comment #1 from Paulo Henrique Rodrigues Pinheiro  ---
And, please, this is my first package, and I need a sponsor. Thanks!

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1310793] Review Request: unqlite - embedded key/value databasse/engine

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310793

Paulo Henrique Rodrigues Pinheiro  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841
[Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a
sponsor
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review