[Bug 554530] Review Request: cdf - A colorized df
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=554530 Damien Durand changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 554530] Review Request: cdf - A colorized df
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=554530 Dennis Gilmore changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #7 from Dennis Gilmore 2010-05-25 16:57:04 EDT --- CVS Done Except for F-11 which does not accept new branches -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 554530] Review Request: cdf - A colorized df
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=554530 --- Comment #6 from Damien Durand 2010-05-23 12:36:12 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: cdf Short Description: cdf - A colorized df Owners: splinux Branches: F-11 F-12 F-13 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 554530] Review Request: cdf - A colorized df
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=554530 Damien Durand changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 554530] Review Request: cdf - A colorized df
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=554530 Dominic Hopf changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Dominic Hopf 2010-05-22 09:45:04 EDT --- $ rpmlint cdf.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint /home/dmaphy/rpmbuild/SRPMS/cdf-0.2-2.fc12.src.rpm cdf.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) df -> sf, ff, dd cdf.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US df -> sf, ff, dd cdf.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US customazable -> customarily, customary, customization cdf.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US utils -> utilizes, utilize, utility 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Translation suggestions: customazable -> customizable * most of such utils needs some 3rd party libraries, python interpreter and so on, while cdf written in pure C -> * Most similar tools need 3rd party libraries, e.g. a python interpreter. cdf is written in pure C. $ rpmlint cdf-0.2-2.fc12.x86_64.rpm cdf-debuginfo-0.2-2.fc12.x86_64.rpm cdf.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) df -> sf, ff, dd cdf.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US df -> sf, ff, dd cdf.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US customizable -> customization, customize, customarily cdf.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US utils -> utilizes, utilize, utility cdf.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cdf 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. For the wording, see the suggestions above. For the manpage, please contact upstream. Package Review == Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines [x] Specfile name matches %{name}.spec [x] Package seems to meet Packaging Guidelines [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary RPMs on at least one supported architecture. Tested on: Fedora 12/x86_64 [x] Rpmlint output: source RPM: see above binary RPM: see above [x] Package is not relocatable. [x] License in specfile matches actual License and meets Licensing Guidelines License: GPLv2+ [x] License file is included in %doc. [x] Specfile is legible and written in AE There are some words which get claimed by rpmlint and a spellchecker, but a dictionary actually told me they are okay. [x] Sourcefile in the Package is the same as provided in the mentioned Source SHA1SUM of Source: 5f5d0c1f1003d9ad3c3cbbda1d8159e9fe10768a [x] Package compiles successfully [-] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires [-] Specfile handles locales properly [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required [x] Package owns directorys it creates [-] Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x] Package does not list a file more than once in the %files listing [x] %files section includes %defattr and permissions are set properly [x] %clean section is there and contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x] Macros are consistently used [x] Package contains code, or permissable content. [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage [x] Program runs properly without files listed in %doc [-] Header files are in a -devel package [-] Static libraries are in a -static package [-] Package requires pkgconfig if .pc files are present [-] .so-files are put into a -devel subpackage [-] Subpackages include fully versioned dependency for the base package [-] Any libtool archives (*.la) are removed [-] contains desktop file (%{name}.desktop) if it is a GUI application [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x] $RPM_BUILD_ROOT is removed at beginning of %install [-] Filenames are encoded in UTF-8 === SUGGESTED ITEMS === [x] Package contains latest upstream version [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-] non-English translations for description and summary [x] Package builds in mock Tested on: F12/x86_64 [x] Package should compile and build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures. tested build with koji [x] Program runs [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-] pkgconfig (*.pc) files are placed in a -devel package [-] require package providing a file instead of the file itself no files outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin are required === Issues to be point out === The make command lacks the %{optflags} macro. I guess this is intended, since the package does not build with the optflags. You should add at least a comment, why you didn't use the optflags macro. You can use the %{name} macro in line 41. I can fully reproduce the two i
[Bug 554530] Review Request: cdf - A colorized df
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=554530 Dominic Hopf changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||dma...@fedoraproject.org AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|dma...@fedoraproject.org Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #4 from Dominic Hopf 2010-05-14 10:02:23 EDT --- I'll do the review next week. :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 554530] Review Request: cdf - A colorized df
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=554530 --- Comment #3 from Damien Durand 2010-05-14 09:18:25 EDT --- Ping ? Sorry for the delay... :-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 554530] Review Request: cdf - A colorized df
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=554530 --- Comment #2 from Damien Durand 2010-05-03 04:32:52 EDT --- The configuration file is cdfrc.sample Spec: http://splinux.fedorapeople.org/cdf/cdf.spec SRPM: http://splinux.fedorapeople.org/cdf/cdf-0.2-2.fc13.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 554530] Review Request: cdf - A colorized df
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=554530 Rich Mattes changed: What|Removed |Added CC||richmat...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Rich Mattes 2010-01-11 22:18:06 EST --- I'm not an approved packager yet, so I'll give you an informal review. -rpmlint output is clean, and should be included in the review request: $ rpmlint cdf.spec ../RPMS/i686/cdf-* 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. - No koji builds? - spec file looks ok - Upstream source URL works - Upstream archive md5sum matches md5sum of source in srpm - Builds in mock (fedora-12-i386) - License matches source files Comments about the program itself: 1) Program installs and runs fine, but doesn't handle long names gracefully. It pushes the columns out of line and line wraps, making the output inconsistent and not so eye-friendly. Beyond the scope of packaging, but I thought I'd mention it. 2) It says the color scheme is customizable, but doesn't say how. Maybe a manpage or readme could be included to explain it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review