[Bug 1623764] Review Request: libpq - PostgreSQL client library

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1623764

Petr Kubat <pkubat@xxxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+



--- Comment #4 from Petr Kubat <pkubat@xxxxxxxxxx> ---
(In reply to Pavel Raiskup from comment #2)
> Spec URL:
> https://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/praiskup/libpq/libpq.git/
> plain/libpq.spec?id=c505e10b2b79b0efc30f73ee2608e3497517f08e
> SRPM URL:
> https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/praiskup/libpq/fedora-
> rawhide-x86_64/00794229-libpq/libpq-10.5-3.fc30.src.rpm
> 
> Thanks for the your comments!
> 
> The 10.6 was just development string (I wasn't sure what will be the final
> Release right before implementing this chagne) -- so correct should be
> '10.5-4' (at this point in time) because the latest Release shipped in
> postgresql-libs is '10.5.3'.
> 
> Whether the package obsoletes itself..., I'm not sure.  I don't think it has
> such effect in the end.  But I bumped the Release to '3' to make sure it's
> OK.

LGTM now (with the changes in comment 3).

> 
> It's not that strict in current Fedora, and directories might co-own files.
> The list is pretty sane, /usr/include/libpq will be owned only by libpq (same
> as '/usr/include/pgsql/internal/libpq'), /usr/share/pgsql will be co-owned
> by (otherwise not coupled in any way) 'libpq-devel' and
> 'postgresql-server-devel' (ditto for  /usr/include/pgsql/internal).

Makes sense. This way there should not be any issues with co-ownerships as it
is only forbidden (iiuc) when a directory is owned by a required package.

> > [!]: Package does not generate any conflict.
> >      Note: Expected failure as it conflicts with postgresql for now.
> 
> Yes, 'postgresql.spec' will be updated atomically with build of libpq.spec
> and
> libecpg.spec.
> 
> > [!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
> 
> This requires some work.  But libpq.so will be tested extensively by the
> postgresql.spec builds.

I agree this should be enough for now.

Thanks for the changes! LGTM

-- 
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Conditions]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux