[Bug 1100899] Review Request: ratools - Framework for IPv6 Router Advertisements
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100899 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|ratools-0.5.2-3.fc19|ratools-0.5.2-3.el6 --- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- ratools-0.5.2-3.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: 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 1100899] Review Request: ratools - Framework for IPv6 Router Advertisements
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100899 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||ratools-0.5.2-3.fc20 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2014-06-12 02:27:27 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- ratools-0.5.2-3.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: 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 1100899] Review Request: ratools - Framework for IPv6 Router Advertisements
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100899 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|ratools-0.5.2-3.fc20|ratools-0.5.2-3.fc19 --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- ratools-0.5.2-3.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: 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 1100899] Review Request: ratools - Framework for IPv6 Router Advertisements
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100899 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: 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 1100899] Review Request: ratools - Framework for IPv6 Router Advertisements
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100899 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- ratools-0.5.2-3.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ratools-0.5.2-3.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: 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 1100899] Review Request: ratools - Framework for IPv6 Router Advertisements
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100899 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- ratools-0.5.2-3.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ratools-0.5.2-3.el6 -- You are receiving this mail because: 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 1100899] Review Request: ratools - Framework for IPv6 Router Advertisements
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100899 --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- ratools-0.5.2-3.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ratools-0.5.2-3.fc19 -- You are receiving this mail because: 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 1100899] Review Request: ratools - Framework for IPv6 Router Advertisements
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100899 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- ratools-0.5.2-3.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: 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 1100899] Review Request: ratools - Framework for IPv6 Router Advertisements
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100899 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: 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 1100899] Review Request: ratools - Framework for IPv6 Router Advertisements
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100899 --- Comment #17 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: 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 1100899] Review Request: ratools - Framework for IPv6 Router Advertisements
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100899
--- Comment #13 from Florian der-flo Lehner d...@der-flo.net ---
Due to the changes the URLs changed, too.
Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/florianl/ratools-spec/master/ratools.spec
SRPM URL: https://www.der-flo.net/ratools-0.5.2-2.fc20.src.rpm
koij-build rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6914046
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Apache (v2.0). Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/flo/rpmbuild/SRPMS/ratools/licensecheck.txt
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
Note: No (noreplace) in %config /etc/bash_completion.d/ractl
--- the reason is justified in a comment above
[-]: 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.
[-]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 4 files.
[?]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
--- not my department because this is an *INFORMAL* for myself
[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]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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]: 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]: No %config files under /usr.
[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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= 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).
[x]: 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.
---
[Bug 1100899] Review Request: ratools - Framework for IPv6 Router Advertisements
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100899
--- Comment #14 from Florian der-flo Lehner d...@der-flo.net ---
Due to the changes the URLs changed, too.
Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/florianl/ratools-spec/master/ratools.spec
SRPM URL: https://www.der-flo.net/ratools-0.5.2-3.fc20.src.rpm
koij-build rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6914050
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Apache (v2.0). Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/flo/rpmbuild/SRPMS/ratools/licensecheck.txt
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
Note: No (noreplace) in %config /etc/bash_completion.d/ractl
[-]: 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.
[-]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 4 files.
[?]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
--- not my department because this is an *INFORMAL* review for myself
[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]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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]: 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]: No %config files under /usr.
[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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= 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).
[x]: 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.
--- http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6914050
[-]: %check is present
[Bug 1100899] Review Request: ratools - Framework for IPv6 Router Advertisements
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100899
Björn besser82 Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
CC|package-review@lists.fedora |
|project.org |
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #15 from Björn besser82 Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
Note: No (noreplace) in %config /etc/bash_completion.d/ractl
--- justified in comment
[-]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 4 files.
[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]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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]: 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]: No %config files under /usr.
[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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= 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).
[x]: 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.
--- see scratch-build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6914050
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
[Bug 1100899] Review Request: ratools - Framework for IPv6 Router Advertisements
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100899 Florian der-flo Lehner d...@der-flo.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #16 from Florian der-flo Lehner d...@der-flo.net --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: ratools Short Description: Framework for creating, modifying and sending IPv6 Router Advertisements Upstream URL: https://www.nonattached.net/ratools Owners: flo besser82 Branches: f19 f20 el6 epel7 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: 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 1100899] Review Request: ratools - Framework for IPv6 Router Advertisements
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100899
--- Comment #10 from Florian der-flo Lehner d...@der-flo.net ---
spec-File was updated to latest version
Due to the changes the URLs changed, too
Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/florianl/ratools-spec/master/ratools.spec
SRPM URL: https://www.der-flo.net/ratools-0.5.2-1.fc20.src.rpm
koij-build F20: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6912215
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
Note: No (noreplace) in %config /etc/bash_completion.d/ractl
[-]: 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.
[-]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[?]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
--- no such a file needed at the moment
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 4 files.
[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]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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]: 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]: No %config files under /usr.
[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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= 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).
[x]: 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.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should
[Bug 1100899] Review Request: ratools - Framework for IPv6 Router Advertisements
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100899 --- Comment #11 from Igor Gnatenko i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com --- I think noreplace is not needed for bash completion file. -- 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 1100899] Review Request: ratools - Framework for IPv6 Router Advertisements
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100899
--- Comment #12 from Björn besser82 Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Apache (v2.0). Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/1100899-ratools/licensecheck.txt
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
Note: No (noreplace) in %config /etc/bash_completion.d/ractl
--- please add a comment with some justification about this.
Information supplied in Comment #6 might be useful…
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100899#c6
[-]: 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.
[-]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 4 files.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
--- issues are present.
[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]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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]: 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]: No %config files under /usr.
[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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= 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).
[x]: 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.
--- see: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6912545
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor,
[Bug 1100899] Review Request: ratools - Framework for IPv6 Router Advertisements
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100899
--- Comment #6 from Björn besser82 Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com ---
Created attachment 899924
-- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=899924action=edit
fix Makefile for parallelized make-jobs
Package looks almost fine now. =)
Just a few little things:
* Please update to new upstream version 0.5.1 (as tagged in git) and
drop current `Patch0`, as this is fixed in the new release.
* Have a look a my attached patch and apply it to the sources. This
will fix parallelized make-jobs, so you can append `%{?_smp_mflags}`
again to the invocation of `make`. The patch has already been
upstreamed by me as you can see in my pull-request [1].
* You will need to add a blackslash '\' to the line which sets
{C,LD}FLAGS, like:
`CFLAGS=%{?optflags} LDFLAGS=%{?__global_ldflags} \`
In other cases the flags are not properly injected into make's
default $ENV.
* Setting `%config(noreplace)` for the bash-completion is a bad idea,
since this file is NOT config as meant to be customized by the user.
On newer versions of ratools there might be changes in CLI and the
bash-completion WILL change. The `noreplace` is meant for cases when
you ship some default config to be customized by the user with the
package, so the customized config will NOT be overwritten on pkg-updates.
In this case this config must be replaced on updates for said reasons.
So please drop the `noreplace` and just use `%config` for this file.
Before I'm going to sponsor you into the package-group, I want to see some
*INFORMAL* package-reviews made by you. You can find packages, which need a
review, over here [2]. Just pick 3 or 4 from that list and try to do a
fully-featured review, but without assigning the bug to you or raising the
fedora-review-flag in rhbz.
[1] https://github.com/danrl/ratools/pull/2
[2] http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEW.html
--
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 1100899] Review Request: ratools - Framework for IPv6 Router Advertisements
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100899 --- Comment #7 from Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me --- Please use your real name instead of some alphbets like flo in bugzilla which is a serious place exactly. -- 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 1100899] Review Request: ratools - Framework for IPv6 Router Advertisements
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100899 --- Comment #8 from Björn besser82 Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #7) Please use your real name instead of some alphbets like flo in bugzilla which is a serious place exactly. And please make sure your email-address in rhbz is identical to the one used for your FAS-account. That is important for the privileges-management-system; otherwise privileges granted in FAS won't be applied correctly for rhbz. Cheers, Björn -- 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 1100899] Review Request: ratools - Framework for IPv6 Router Advertisements
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100899 Björn besser82 Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #899924|0 |1 is obsolete|| --- Comment #9 from Björn besser82 Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com --- Created attachment 900078 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=900078action=edit fix Makefile for parallelized make-jobs I reworked my patch a bit to fix one corner-case fail… -- 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 1100899] Review Request: ratools - Framework for IPv6 Router Advertisements
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100899
--- Comment #5 from flo ab...@der-flo.net ---
Due to the changes the URLs changed, too
Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/florianl/ratools-spec/master/ratools.spec
SRPM URL: https://www.der-flo.net/ratools-0.5-3.fc20.src.rpm
koij-build F20: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6894022
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[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.
--- no such a file needed at the moment
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 4 files.
[?]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
--- so far no known issues to me
[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]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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]: No %config files under /usr.
[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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[-]: 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).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
--- upstream is at version 0.5.1 and this package on version 0.5
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[-]: 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.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags
[Bug 1100899] Review Request: ratools - Framework for IPv6 Router Advertisements
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100899
Igor Gnatenko i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Igor Gnatenko i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com ---
%{_sysconfdir}/bash_completion.d/
should be:
%{_sysconfdir}/bash_completion.d/*
because you shouldn't own this dir. only some files in it.
License: Apache License, Version 2.0
should be:
License: ASL 2.0
Reference: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#Good_Licenses
%build section has no %configure. That's bad. if there no configure file - use
this hook:
%prep
...
echo '#!/bin/sh' ./configure
chmod +x ./configure
%build
%configure
...
--
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 1100899] Review Request: ratools - Framework for IPv6 Router Advertisements
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100899 --- Comment #2 from Igor Gnatenko i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com --- Group tag not needed. Also seems weird attributes fir executable files (751). is it ok ? why 751? -- 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 1100899] Review Request: ratools - Framework for IPv6 Router Advertisements
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100899
Björn besser82 Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||bjoern.es...@gmail.com
Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|bjoern.es...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #3 from Björn besser82 Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
- Permissions on files are set properly.
Note: See rpmlint output
Solution: use `install -pm 0755` or `install -pm0644`.
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions
- License-tag has malicious value.
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main
- Package *MUST NOT* own dirs, which are owned by another package.
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership
- Daemon-application without fully hardening.
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags
- Applicable compiler-flags are not passed to compiler / linker.
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags
- Patch without clarified license, origin and upstreaming.
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment
- Inefficient parallel make.
See: my comment during report
- Doxygen-file present, but no docs are generated nor packaged.
Solution: BR: doxygen graphviz, invoke `doxygen Doxyfile` during build,
create -doc-subpkg and include %doc doc/html and the docs
from mainpkg.
- Non-conffile-in-etc /etc/bash_completion.d/ractl.
Solution: use %config %{_sysconfdir}/bash_completion.d/* in %files-section
- File `config.example` is missing from %doc.
Solution: include the file within %doc.
- Package consistently uses macros. Source-url is not macroized.
Solution: v0.5.tar.gz --- %{version}.tar.gz
- Source0 preferred over Source.
- Please re-name the upstream to NV.tar*.
Solution: append '#/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz' to Source0.
- URL-tag *SHOULD NOT* end in *.html or similar:
Solution: remove `index.html`
- Group-tag is obsoleted since RHEL6.
Solution: remove it or conditionalize for RHEL5, e.g.:
%{?el5:Group:…}
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
--- license is matching the sources, but the content of the tag
is bad: Apache License, Version 2.0 --- ASL 2.0 Which would
be the correct content of the license-tag inside the spec-file.
see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main
[!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /etc/bash_completion.d(git, bzr,
rpmdevtools, mercurial, filesystem, pulseaudio, bash-completion, python-
django-bash-completion, yum-utils, fedpkg, quilt)
--- having your package own that dir is bad, since this dir is
already owned by the filesystem-pkg, which is a basic package
to be found on every non-b0rk3n installation of Fedora or RHEL.
About the other packages: I'll file a bug against them…
[!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
--- compiler flags are not exported properly. Please prepend this
to the line(s) invoking `make`:
CFLAGS=%{?optflags} LDFLAGS=%{?__global_ldflags}
The next thing is: This pkg builds a daemon application,
which means fully hardening *MUST* be on go. Please add
this on top of your spec-file: %global _hardened_build 1
[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.
[!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
--- source-url is not macroized: v0.5.tar.gz --- %{version}.tar.gz
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and
[Bug 1100899] Review Request: ratools - Framework for IPv6 Router Advertisements
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100899
--- Comment #4 from Björn besser82 Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #1)
%build section has no %configure. That's bad. if there no configure file -
use this hook:
%prep
...
echo '#!/bin/sh' ./configure
chmod +x ./configure
%build
%configure
...
Hey, Igor!
Unfortunately that won't help here, because we need to pass the compiler /
linker flags directly into Makefile, since it doesn't evaluate them from
shell's $env. ;) The only working solution here is as I mentioned prepending
CFLAGS=%{?optflags} LDFLAGS=%{?__global_ldflags} to invocation of `make`.
Cheers,
Björn
--
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 1100899] Review Request: ratools - Framework for IPv6 Router Advertisements
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100899 flo ab...@der-flo.net changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- 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 1100899] Review Request: ratools - Framework for IPv6 Router Advertisements
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100899 flo ab...@der-flo.net changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Depends On|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- 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
