[Bug 437192] Review Request: simdock - Fast and customizable dockbar
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=437192 Terje Røsten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #12 from Terje Røsten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-10-20 03:09:41 EDT --- Imported and built. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 437192] Review Request: simdock - Fast and customizable dockbar
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=437192 Kevin Fenzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #11 from Kevin Fenzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-10-19 18:41:37 EDT --- cvs done. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 437192] Review Request: simdock - Fast and customizable dockbar
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=437192 Terje Røsten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from Terje Røsten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-10-18 17:01:55 EDT --- I see the point, something to consider. Thanks for the review! New Package CVS Request === Package Name: simdock Short Description: Fast and customizable dockbar Owners: terjeros Branches: F-9 InitialCC: -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 437192] Review Request: simdock - Fast and customizable dockbar
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=437192 --- Comment #9 from Jussi Lehtola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-10-18 16:43:00 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8) > Please set correct Status and Assigned To, do this before you start the > review. Thanks for the tip :) > I will put br's in alphabetized order, however on a single line. > > Where is the one br per line policy coming from? I don't think it's a policy per se; my sponsor (Dominik) told me about it. And he is right: even though you have to spend a minute or two typing the BRs in this way, the end result is a lot cleaner to look at. You can see on one glance what kind of software the package requires. When you have many requires per line, you have to spend more time looking around; when you have everything nicely in a column the list is much faster to look through. Since your other packages also have the same kind of BRs and they have passed their reviews without problems, I won't make a fuss out of this. Decide for yourself: which of these is nicest to read? http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/lynx/F-9/lynx.spec?revision=1.55&view=markup http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/firefox/F-9/firefox.spec?revision=1.304&view=markup http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/evolution/F-8/evolution.spec?revision=1.313&view=markup -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 437192] Review Request: simdock - Fast and customizable dockbar
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=437192 Jussi Lehtola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 437192] Review Request: simdock - Fast and customizable dockbar
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=437192 --- Comment #8 from Terje Røsten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-10-18 16:28:15 EDT --- Please set correct Status and Assigned To, do this before you start the review. I will put br's in alphabetized order, however on a single line. Where is the one br per line policy coming from? -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 437192] Review Request: simdock - Fast and customizable dockbar
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=437192 Jussi Lehtola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Jussi Lehtola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-10-18 16:20:10 EDT --- Sure, now that I got packager status. SHOULD: Now the buildrequires section is IMHO not very clean. Please break the BR one per line in alphabetized order. But you can do this when you import the package. The only thing missing in the preliminary review was the desktop file installation and you've fixed that, the package is ACCEPTED. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 437192] Review Request: simdock - Fast and customizable dockbar
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=437192 --- Comment #6 from Terje Røsten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-10-18 14:30:38 EDT --- Jussi, do you want to continue the review? -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 437192] Review Request: simdock - Fast and customizable dockbar
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=437192 --- Comment #5 from Terje Røsten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-10-05 14:13:34 EDT --- Seems like I forgot to update the spec file, fixed now. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 437192] Review Request: simdock - Fast and customizable dockbar
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=437192 --- Comment #4 from Terje Røsten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-10-02 14:50:42 EDT --- Updated package: - fix patch macro - install desktop file spec: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/simdock/simdock.spec srpm: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=857464&name=simdock-1.2-2.fc10.src.rpm koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=857463 -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 437192] Review Request: simdock - Fast and customizable dockbar
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=437192 --- Comment #3 from Terje Røsten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-10-02 01:41:33 EDT --- > Are you sponsored? I can't find your name in Fedora Account System. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/users/packages/terjeros -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 437192] Review Request: simdock - Fast and customizable dockbar
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=437192 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: simdock - |Review Request: simdock - |Fast and customizable |Fast and customizable |dockbar |dockbar --- Comment #2 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-10-01 17:44:34 EDT --- Are you sponsored? I can't find your name in Fedora Account System. Some additional comments: Per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Desktop_files You must add BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils and install the .desktop file using desktop-file-install. The desktop file itself should contain Icon=simdock not Icon=simdock.png Build fails on rawhide: error: %patch without corresponding "Patch:" tag Solution: use %patch0 It builds fine in mock after that, so BuildRequires (apart from the above) are fine. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 437192] Review Request: simdock - Fast and customizable dockbar
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=437192
Jussi Lehtola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Comment #1 from Jussi Lehtola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-09-29 10:16:34 EDT
---
Review:
- MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
Clean.
- MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
OK.
- MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption on Package Naming Guidelines
.
OK.
- MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
OK.
- MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
OK.
- MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
OK.
- MUST: 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 must be included in %doc.
OK.
- MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK.
- MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. If the reviewer is
unable to read the spec file, it will be impossible to perform a review. Fedora
is not the place for entries into the Obfuscated Code Contest
(http://www.ioccc.org/).
OK.
- MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
OK.
- MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one supported architecture.
Works at least on F9 x86-64.
- MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch needs to have a bug filed
in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work
on that architecture. The bug number should then be placed in a comment, next
to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. New packages will not have bugzilla
entries during the review process, so they should put this description in the
comment until the package is approved, then file the bugzilla entry, and
replace the long explanation with the bug number. The bug should be marked as
blocking one (or more) of the following bugs to simplify tracking such issues:
FE-ExcludeArch-x86 , FE-ExcludeArch-x64 , FE-ExcludeArch-ppc ,
FE-ExcludeArch-ppc64
Needs to be checked in the buildsystem.
- MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
Worked for me in a full desktop install, mock may be more strict.
- MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
N/A
- MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just
symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in
%post and %postun. If the package has multiple subpackages with libraries, each
subpackage should also have a %post/%postun section that calls /sbin/ldconfig.
An example of the correct syntax for this is:
%post -p /sbin/ldconfig
%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig
N/A
- MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
N/A
- MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory. Refer to the Guidelines for examples.
OK.
- MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
OK.
- MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
OK.
- MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} ( or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ).
OK.
- MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines .
OK.
- MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. This is
described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines .
OK.
- MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage. (The
definit
