[Bug 1709645] Review Request: postgres-decoderbufs - logical decoder plugin for PostgreSQL

2020-03-07 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1709645

Honza Horak  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE
Last Closed||2020-03-07 16:34:25



-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org


[Bug 1709645] Review Request: postgres-decoderbufs - logical decoder plugin for PostgreSQL

2019-06-05 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1709645



--- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/postgres-decoderbufs

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org


[Bug 1709645] Review Request: postgres-decoderbufs - logical decoder plugin for PostgreSQL

2019-05-15 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1709645



--- Comment #3 from Jiri Pechanec  ---
I've relaxed build dependency version to those we know it works and test with
it.

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org


[Bug 1709645] Review Request: postgres-decoderbufs - logical decoder plugin for PostgreSQL

2019-05-15 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1709645

Honza Horak  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #2 from Honza Horak  ---
The License is now fixed:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/jpechane/postgres-decoderbufs/DBZ-1272/rpms/postgres-decoderbufs.spec

I still strictly recommend to re-consider the BuildDependencies that are tight
so strictly to a version v11 and add a comment why it is done so. It's not a
blocker from my PoV, so approving.

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org


[Bug 1709645] Review Request: postgres-decoderbufs - logical decoder plugin for PostgreSQL

2019-05-14 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1709645

Honza Horak  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||hho...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|hho...@redhat.com



--- Comment #1 from Honza Horak  ---
There is one issue that needs a fix:

The tag includes "MIT License", but it should only include "MIT".

Otherwise looks good to me.


Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
 attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.

Unversioned .so is ok for postgresql modules, located in private %_libdir.

[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
 BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)". 7 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/hhorak/tmp/review/review-postgres-decoderbufs/licensecheck.txt

The tag includes "MIT License", but it should only include "MIT".

[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/pgsql

Owned by postgresql-server, and the postgresql-server runtime dependency is
automatically generated as postgresql-server(:MODULE_COMPAT_11).

[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.

The BuildRequires only support postgresql v11, but the justification is not
mentioned.

[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package