https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823170 Jonathan Dieter <jdieter@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Jonathan Dieter <jdieter@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to comment #7) > (In reply to comment #6) > > > So, there are really three issues here. The first is that you have some > > legacy buildroot stuff going on that's only needed if you're planning on > > building for EPEL-5. If you are, I'm happy to approve this, otherwise, > > please remove > > I plan to build it only for EL6 and F17+. So what exactly not needed for EL6? You've already done it in your last spec. You just needed to get rid of the %clean section and the rm -rf $BUILDROOT at the beginning of the %install section. > > The second is the rpmlint output, and the only thing I really care about is > > the stuff about Patch3. > > Dropped this patch. It didn't fix the failing test in ppc anyway. Here is > new package: > > * http://peter.fedorapeople.org/leveldb.spec > * http://peter.fedorapeople.org/leveldb-1.5.0-2.fc18.src.rpm Looks great! > > Finally, you have two patches (that are being used), and I'd love to either > > see upstream bug reports with the patches included or comments in the spec > > explaining why not. > > Well, the short answer is I just didn't have time to send them. This package > is a part of a much more bigger picture - inclusion of Riak in fedora. I > created a several dozens of patches for different libraries while working on > this task and already submitted some of them but not all of them. I'll do. > > Regarding these patch I wouldn't be too optimistic - especially about patch > #1. It seems that internal development culture in Google (the upstream of > this library) becomes less and less friendly to the OSS community in general > and to the volunteers outside of Google in particular. > > For example they constantly create their own buggy and incompatible tools > and set up their own infrastructure instead of re-using standard and proven > components (build systems, issue trackers). They also have a very bad habit > of forking and bundling other projects within their own ones instead of > working with upstream. > > Anyway I'll try to send these patches to them as soon as I've some free time. I'm not to pushed with whether or not they decide to take the patches, but I'd like to make sure that *we're* being good citizens, whatever others may do. If you could just open up an issue for each patch at https://code.google.com/p/leveldb/issues/list and list the links to the issues in the spec file, that would easily satisfy the requirements. I'm going to go ahead and APPROVE this review, but I'd appreciate it if you do the above before you push the initial release. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review