[Bug 492708] Review Request: xml2 - XML/Unix Processing Tools
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=492708 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System 2009-04-13 15:39:06 EDT --- xml2-0.4-2.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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 492708] Review Request: xml2 - XML/Unix Processing Tools
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=492708 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||0.4-2.fc10 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 492708] Review Request: xml2 - XML/Unix Processing Tools
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=492708 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|0.4-2.fc10 |0.4-2.fc9 -- 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 492708] Review Request: xml2 - XML/Unix Processing Tools
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=492708 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System 2009-04-13 15:35:15 EDT --- xml2-0.4-2.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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 492708] Review Request: xml2 - XML/Unix Processing Tools
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=492708 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System 2009-04-02 13:20:21 EDT --- xml2-0.4-2.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update xml2'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-3269 -- 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 492708] Review Request: xml2 - XML/Unix Processing Tools
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=492708 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System 2009-04-02 13:11:26 EDT --- xml2-0.4-2.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing-newkey update xml2'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2009-3180 -- 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 492708] Review Request: xml2 - XML/Unix Processing Tools
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=492708 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System 2009-03-30 18:38:16 EDT --- xml2-0.4-2.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xml2-0.4-2.fc10 -- 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 492708] Review Request: xml2 - XML/Unix Processing Tools
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=492708 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System 2009-03-30 18:38:21 EDT --- xml2-0.4-2.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xml2-0.4-2.fc9 -- 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 492708] Review Request: xml2 - XML/Unix Processing Tools
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=492708 Kevin Fenzi changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #3 from Kevin Fenzi 2009-03-30 17:40:06 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 492708] Review Request: xml2 - XML/Unix Processing Tools
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=492708 Thomas Moschny changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Thomas Moschny 2009-03-28 13:32:52 EDT --- Thanks for the review! New Package CVS Request === Package Name: xml2 Short Description: XML/Unix Processing Tools Owners: thm Branches: F-9 F-10 InitialCC: none Cvsextras Commits: yes -- 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 492708] Review Request: xml2 - XML/Unix Processing Tools
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=492708 Robert Scheck changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|redhat-bugzi...@linuxnetz.d ||e Flag||fedora-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 492708] Review Request: xml2 - XML/Unix Processing Tools
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=492708
Robert Scheck changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redhat-bugzi...@linuxnetz.d
||e
--- Comment #1 from Robert Scheck 2009-03-28
13:16:46 EDT ---
Okay, here we go:
[ DONE ] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package
$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock//fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/xml2-*
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$
[ OK ] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines
[ OK ] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name} [...]
[ 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.
[ 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.
-> 8a0ef16fe0b3e1495307318c590c1ec0 xml2-0.4.tar.gz
-> 8a0ef16fe0b3e1495307318c590c1ec0 xml2-0.4.tar.gz.1
-> 735e7f6c336bd88dd1ab12bdea84e7cf1df5a36d xml2-0.4.tar.gz
-> 735e7f6c336bd88dd1ab12bdea84e7cf1df5a36d xml2-0.4.tar.gz.1
[ OK ] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary
rpms on at least one primary architecture
[ N/A ] 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 MUST
have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package
does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST
be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line
[ OK ] 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.
[ N/A ] 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 (or subpackage) which stores shared
library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's
default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [10]
[ 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. [11]
[ OK ] 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.
[ 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.
[ OK ] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[ N/A ] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but
is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or
quantity).
[ OK ] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the
program must run properly if it is not present.
[ N/A ] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[ N/A ] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[ N/A ] MUST: Packages conta
