[Bug 1031317] Review Request: rubygem-rttool - Converter from RT into various formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1031317 Mamoru TASAKA mtas...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2013-12-05 04:05:31 --- Comment #8 from Mamoru TASAKA mtas...@fedoraproject.org --- Rebuilt for all branches, push requested for F-20/19, closing. Thank you for review and git procedure. -- 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@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1031317] Review Request: rubygem-rttool - Converter from RT into various formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1031317 Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- 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@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1031317] Review Request: rubygem-rttool - Converter from RT into various formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1031317 Mamoru TASAKA mtas...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Mamoru TASAKA mtas...@fedoraproject.org --- Thank you! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-rttool Short Description: Converter from RT into various formats Owners: mtasaka Branches: f19 f20 -- 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@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1031317] Review Request: rubygem-rttool - Converter from RT into various formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1031317 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- 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@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1031317] Review Request: rubygem-rttool - Converter from RT into various formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1031317 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1031317] Review Request: rubygem-rttool - Converter from RT into various formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1031317 --- Comment #4 from Mamoru TASAKA mtas...@fedoraproject.org --- Thank you for review! By the way, would you change fedora-cvs flag to fedora-review flag? -- 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@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1031317] Review Request: rubygem-rttool - Converter from RT into various formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1031317 Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com --- Whoops, sorry about that! Flags fixed. -- 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@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1031317] Review Request: rubygem-rttool - Converter from RT into various formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1031317 Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||ktdre...@ktdreyer.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ktdre...@ktdreyer.com Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com --- I can take this review. -- 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@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1031317] Review Request: rubygem-rttool - Converter from RT into various formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1031317 Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- 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@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1031317] Review Request: rubygem-rttool - Converter from RT into various formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1031317
--- Comment #3 from Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com ---
Package APPROVED.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
None of these issues are blockers, just recommendations.
- I recommend deleting the Generated by gem2rpm comment, since the version
number will grow stale.
- I recommend extending the shebang replacements to bin/rt2, bin/rdrt2,
bin/rt/rt2, bin/rt/rdrt2, since those files are causing RPM to autorequire
/usr/bin/env.
I've opened https://github.com/genki/rttool/issues/1 upstream for the
incorrect-fsf-address issue.
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: 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 is included in %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Ruby:
[x]: Platform dependent files must all go under %{gem_extdir_mri}, platform
independent under %{gem_dir}.
[x]: Gem package must not define a non-gem subpackage
[x]: Macro %{gem_extdir} is deprecated.
[x]: Gem package is named rubygem-%{gem_name}
[x]: Package contains BuildRequires: rubygems-devel.
[x]: Gem package must define %{gem_name} macro.
[x]: Pure Ruby package must be built as noarch
[x]: Package does not contain Requires: ruby(abi).
[x]: Package contains Requires: ruby(release).
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright
[Bug 1031317] Review Request: rubygem-rttool - Converter from RT into various formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1031317 --- Comment #1 from Mamoru TASAKA mtas...@fedoraproject.org --- ( While rubygem-rdtool is currently in testing on F-19 and F-20, these are in koji buildroot, because I made them have override tag, so koji scratch build for rttool can be done for F-21, 20 and 19) -- 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@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1031317] Review Request: rubygem-rttool - Converter from RT into various formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1031317 Bug 1031317 depends on bug 1031316, which changed state. Bug 1031316 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-rdtool - Formatter for RD https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1031316 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE -- 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@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1031317] Review Request: rubygem-rttool - Converter from RT into various formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1031317 Mamoru TASAKA mtas...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1031316 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1031316 [Bug 1031316] Review Request: rubygem-rdtool - Formatter for RD -- 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@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1031317] Review Request: rubygem-rttool - Converter from RT into various formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1031317 Mamoru TASAKA mtas...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1031318 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1031318 [Bug 1031318] Review Request: rubygem-rabbit - RD-document-based presentation application -- 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@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
