[Bug 1107127] Review Request: procenv - Utility to show process environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107127 --- Comment #54 from Fedora Update System --- procenv-0.44-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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 1107127] Review Request: procenv - Utility to show process environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107127 --- Comment #53 from Fedora Update System --- procenv-0.44-1.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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 1107127] Review Request: procenv - Utility to show process environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107127 --- Comment #52 from Fedora Update System --- procenv-0.44-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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 1107127] Review Request: procenv - Utility to show process environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107127 --- Comment #51 from Fedora Update System --- procenv-0.44-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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 1107127] Review Request: procenv - Utility to show process environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107127 --- Comment #50 from Fedora Update System --- procenv-0.44-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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 1107127] Review Request: procenv - Utility to show process environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107127 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2016-02-29 00:25:30 -- 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 1107127] Review Request: procenv - Utility to show process environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107127 --- Comment #49 from Fedora Update System --- procenv-0.44-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-5ad6e50b35 -- 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 1107127] Review Request: procenv - Utility to show process environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107127 --- Comment #48 from Fedora Update System --- procenv-0.44-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-0535db238d -- 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 1107127] Review Request: procenv - Utility to show process environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107127 --- Comment #47 from Fedora Update System --- procenv-0.44-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-7dbbd7d092 -- 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 1107127] Review Request: procenv - Utility to show process environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107127 --- Comment #46 from Fedora Update System --- procenv-0.44-1.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-c505d23149 -- 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 1107127] Review Request: procenv - Utility to show process environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107127 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #45 from Fedora Update System --- procenv-0.44-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-daa7db6d1b -- 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 1107127] Review Request: procenv - Utility to show process environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107127 --- Comment #44 from Fedora Update System --- procenv-0.44-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-0535db238d -- 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 1107127] Review Request: procenv - Utility to show process environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107127 --- Comment #43 from Fedora Update System --- procenv-0.44-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-5ad6e50b35 -- 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 1107127] Review Request: procenv - Utility to show process environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107127 --- Comment #42 from Fedora Update System --- procenv-0.44-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-daa7db6d1b -- 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 1107127] Review Request: procenv - Utility to show process environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107127 --- Comment #41 from Fedora Update System --- procenv-0.44-1.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-7dbbd7d092 -- 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 1107127] Review Request: procenv - Utility to show process environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107127 --- Comment #40 from Fedora Update System --- procenv-0.44-1.el5 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 5. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-c505d23149 -- 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 1107127] Review Request: procenv - Utility to show process environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107127 Fedora Update System 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 1107127] Review Request: procenv - Utility to show process environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107127 --- Comment #39 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/procenv -- 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 1107127] Review Request: procenv - Utility to show process environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107127 --- Comment #38 from Dave Love --- (In reply to Orion Poplawski from comment #37) > - Missing latest changelog entry - I'm assuming you'll manage to fix this > though. Oops; thanks. There's a recent update anyhow. -- 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 1107127] Review Request: procenv - Utility to show process environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107127
Orion Poplawski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #37 from Orion Poplawski ---
Sorry for the delay.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
- Missing latest changelog entry - I'm assuming you'll manage to fix this
though.
= 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: "GPL (v3 or later)". Detailed output of licensecheck in
/export/home/orion/redhat/1107127-procenv/licensecheck.txt
[-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 61440 bytes in 5 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 %license.
[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]: Dist tag is present.
[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 does not use a name that already exists.
[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:
[x]: Buildroot is not present
Note: Buildroot: present but not needed
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: %clean present but not required
[x]: 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.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]
[Bug 1107127] Review Request: procenv - Utility to show process environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107127 --- Comment #36 from Dave Love --- Ping on this stalled 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 1107127] Review Request: procenv - Utility to show process environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107127 --- Comment #35 from James Hunt --- Hi Orion - is there anything you are waiting on myself/Dave for still? It would be great to get this into Fedora soon (for parity with Debian and Ubuntu, where it's been available for a long time). Thanks in advance. -- 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 1107127] Review Request: procenv - Utility to show process environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107127 --- Comment #34 from James Hunt --- procenv 0.43 has now been released. Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11971335 Files: https://jamesodhunt.fedorapeople.org/packages/procenv/SHA512SUM https://jamesodhunt.fedorapeople.org/packages/procenv/procenv-0.43-1.fc23.src.rpm https://jamesodhunt.fedorapeople.org/packages/procenv/procenv-0.43.tar.gz https://jamesodhunt.fedorapeople.org/packages/procenv/procenv.spec -- 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 1107127] Review Request: procenv - Utility to show process environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107127 --- Comment #33 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- jamesodhunt's scratch build of procenv-0.43-1.fc23.src.rpm for f23 completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11971335 -- 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 1107127] Review Request: procenv - Utility to show process environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107127 --- Comment #32 from Dave Love --- (In reply to Dave Love from comment #29) > I didn't think I could try a swap previously without a working > fedora-review. That tells me the built package is uninstallable, but I can't > see why as it is installable in both RHEL 6 and Fedora rawhide. That appears to be a known bug in fedora-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 1107127] Review Request: procenv - Utility to show process environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107127 --- Comment #31 from Dave Love --- (In reply to James Hunt from comment #30) > Whilst we wait, RPMs for Fedora, RHEL, Centos, etc are available via the > Open Build Service repository: > > https://software.opensuse.org/download. > html?project=home%3Ajamesodhunt%3Aprocenv&package=procenv > > (Caveat emptor - Note that they are based on the tip of the development > branch, rather than released versions). I've kept at least somewhat up-to-date with released versions under https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/loveshack/livhpc/ -- 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 1107127] Review Request: procenv - Utility to show process environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107127 --- Comment #30 from James Hunt --- Whilst we wait, RPMs for Fedora, RHEL, Centos, etc are available via the Open Build Service repository: https://software.opensuse.org/download.html?project=home%3Ajamesodhunt%3Aprocenv&package=procenv (Caveat emptor - Note that they are based on the tip of the development branch, rather than released versions). -- 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 1107127] Review Request: procenv - Utility to show process environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107127 --- Comment #29 from Dave Love --- (In reply to James Hunt from comment #26) > I guess as I'm not a packager my name shouldn't appear in the changelog, so > Dave please feel free to change it as you wish. The guidelines say "Keep old changelog entries to credit the original authors." which seems good to me, but it's not clear to me if it needs one from me at the top in the event that it's OK as-is. > Now that the dust from the fc23 release has settled, is there anything else > that needs to be done before this package can be added to Fedora? I guess Orion will get round to it. I'd missed that he'd actually taken the review (thanks!). I didn't think I could try a swap previously without a working fedora-review. That tells me the built package is uninstallable, but I can't see why as it is installable in both RHEL 6 and Fedora rawhide. Current URLs, which should be explicit, but I haven't had a chance to look at the current version yet: Spec URL: https://jamesodhunt.fedorapeople.org/packages/procenv/procenv.spec SRPM URL: https://jamesodhunt.fedorapeople.org/packages/procenv/procenv-0.42-1.fc23.src.rpm -- 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 1107127] Review Request: procenv - Utility to show process environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107127 --- Comment #28 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- jamesodhunt's scratch build of procenv-0.42-1.fc23.src.rpm for f23 completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11719447 -- 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 1107127] Review Request: procenv - Utility to show process environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107127 --- Comment #26 from James Hunt --- I guess as I'm not a packager my name shouldn't appear in the changelog, so Dave please feel free to change it as you wish. Now that the dust from the fc23 release has settled, is there anything else that needs to be done before this package can be added to Fedora? --- Comment #27 from James Hunt --- Files now updated for procenv 0.42 (which no longer requires autoreconf!): https://jamesodhunt.fedorapeople.org/packages/procenv/ -- 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 1107127] Review Request: procenv - Utility to show process environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107127 --- Comment #25 from James Hunt --- How does this look? https://jamesodhunt.fedorapeople.org/packages/procenv/procenv.spec https://jamesodhunt.fedorapeople.org/packages/procenv/procenv-0.41-1.fc23.src.rpm https://jamesodhunt.fedorapeople.org/packages/procenv/procenv-0.41.tar.gz https://jamesodhunt.fedorapeople.org/packages/procenv/SHA512SUM -- 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 1107127] Review Request: procenv - Utility to show process environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107127 --- Comment #24 from Dave Love --- (In reply to James Hunt from comment #22) > Apologies Dave - I wasn't trying to derail your good work getting procenv > into Fedora, but it seemed like this bug had stalled. I have a couple of > other project I intend to package and I came across this bug so poked it a > bit :-) No need for apologies; that's what I assumed anyhow. Apologies if I came across annoyed. [I can't say I like the github effect in various ways.] -- 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 1107127] Review Request: procenv - Utility to show process environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107127
--- Comment #23 from Dave Love ---
(In reply to Orion Poplawski from comment #21)
> > The packaging rules say the source URL should be of the form
> > https://github.com/jamesodhunt/procenv/archive/%commit.tar.gz
> > and then you need
> >
> > %setup -q -n procenv-%commit
>
> Actually, they don't and this was clarified a while back. But I prefer:
Apologies. Where are the actual rules?
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL
looks similar to what I went by when it seemed I should change URLs.
> Source0:
> https://github.com/jamesodhunt/procenv/archive/%{version}.tar.gz#/%{name}-
> %{version}.tar.gz
Thanks. It's definitely better if you can keep sanely-named tarballs
around locally.
--
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 1107127] Review Request: procenv - Utility to show process environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107127 --- Comment #22 from James Hunt --- I am more than happy for Dave to maintain this package. As Orion says, I'm not currently a packager but would like to work towards becoming one. Apologies Dave - I wasn't trying to derail your good work getting procenv into Fedora, but it seemed like this bug had stalled. I have a couple of other project I intend to package and I came across this bug so poked it a bit :-) Regarding the .spec file: - I've now removed defattr(). - json_pp - this is indeed used by the tests so should be available at build time. - The lack of autotool output is indeed missing in v0.41. That's partly due to fallout from the switch from launchpad to github. I'll add it for the next release. I'm still learning github, but their release process is more of a git-tag-and-autocreate-tar.gz as opposed to a proper 'make dist'. However, I'll investigate for the next procenv release... - Source0/%setup: I don't know if it's possible to generate tar files in this format with github. -- 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 1107127] Review Request: procenv - Utility to show process environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107127
--- Comment #21 from Orion Poplawski ---
(In reply to Dave Love from comment #20)
> (In reply to Orion Poplawski from comment #19)
> > So, I'm assuming you guys are interested in co-maintaining? Who is going to
> > be the POC?
>
> James, since he wrote it, though it's currently moot. I don't specifically
> want to maintain it, but I'd like to see it available as an answer to
> "Why does my program fail under the batch system?".
Well, looking closer, it does not appear that James is currently a packager.
Is that correct? James - do you want to become one?
>
> > James -
> >
> > - No need for %defattr(), please remove
>
> I'd subsequently done that and modified the perl-JSON-PP condition per the
> previous comment. (I think this preceded EPEL7.) Is it still relevant with
> whatever "check" does?
I think so.
> > - Why are you running autoreconf?
>
> It no longer ships with autotools output, though I think it should.
> (I realize you may not want to keep that in the repo, and I assume you'd
> have to when using github, but omitting it probably makes builds less
> reliable.)
Ah, I get it now. James - you really want to produce proper releases with
"make dist" and upload the tarballs. I assume github still allows for that.
> The packaging rules say the source URL should be of the form
> https://github.com/jamesodhunt/procenv/archive/%commit.tar.gz
> and then you need
>
> %setup -q -n procenv-%commit
Actually, they don't and this was clarified a while back. But I prefer:
Source0:
https://github.com/jamesodhunt/procenv/archive/%{version}.tar.gz#/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
though perhaps this will change with uploaded tarballs.
--
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 1107127] Review Request: procenv - Utility to show process environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107127
--- Comment #20 from Dave Love ---
(In reply to Orion Poplawski from comment #19)
> So, I'm assuming you guys are interested in co-maintaining? Who is going to
> be the POC?
James, since he wrote it, though it's currently moot. I don't specifically
want to maintain it, but I'd like to see it available as an answer to
"Why does my program fail under the batch system?".
> James -
>
> - No need for %defattr(), please remove
I'd subsequently done that and modified the perl-JSON-PP condition per the
previous comment. (I think this preceded EPEL7.) Is it still relevant with
whatever "check" does?
# Only used for testing; not in EPEL < 7.
%if 0%{?fedora} || 0%{rhel} > 6
BuildRequires: perl-JSON-PP
%endif
> - Why are you running autoreconf?
It no longer ships with autotools output, though I think it should.
(I realize you may not want to keep that in the repo, and I assume you'd
have to when using github, but omitting it probably makes builds less
reliable.)
In their absence, I'd have run the "reconf" script that's there.
The packaging rules say the source URL should be of the form
https://github.com/jamesodhunt/procenv/archive/%commit.tar.gz
and then you need
%setup -q -n procenv-%commit
--
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 1107127] Review Request: procenv - Utility to show process environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107127 Orion Poplawski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|or...@cora.nwra.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #19 from Orion Poplawski --- So, I'm assuming you guys are interested in co-maintaining? Who is going to be the POC? James - - No need for %defattr(), please remove - Why are you running autoreconf? -- 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 1107127] Review Request: procenv - Utility to show process environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107127 --- Comment #18 from James Hunt --- Updated files in comment 11 once again to include 'check-devel' rather than 'check' BuildRequires. Updated koji run: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11577708 -- 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 1107127] Review Request: procenv - Utility to show process environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107127 --- Comment #17 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- jamesodhunt's scratch build of procenv-0.41-1.fc23.src.rpm for f23 completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11577708 -- 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 1107127] Review Request: procenv - Utility to show process environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107127 --- Comment #16 from James Hunt --- Yay - koji is now happy :-) The failing koji builds were caused by missing BuildRequires, specifically: - autoconf - automake - libtool. I have now updated the files in comment 11 to include these builddeps (my originals are still in https://jamesodhunt.fedorapeople.org/packages/procenv/orig/). -- 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 1107127] Review Request: procenv - Utility to show process environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107127 --- Comment #15 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- jamesodhunt's scratch build of procenv-0.41-1.fc23.src.rpm for f23 completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11577350 -- 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 1107127] Review Request: procenv - Utility to show process environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107127 --- Comment #14 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- jamesodhunt's scratch build of procenv-0.41-1.fc23.src.rpm for f23 failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11577344 -- 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 1107127] Review Request: procenv - Utility to show process environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107127 --- Comment #13 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- jamesodhunt's scratch build of procenv-0.41-1.fc23.src.rpm for f23 failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11577328 -- 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 1107127] Review Request: procenv - Utility to show process environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107127 --- Comment #12 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- jamesodhunt's scratch build of procenv-0.41-1.fc23.src.rpm for f23 failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11577322 -- 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 1107127] Review Request: procenv - Utility to show process environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107127 James Hunt changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jamesodh...@gmail.com --- Comment #11 from James Hunt --- I've made some very minor tweaks to Dave's spec file resulting in: https://jamesodhunt.fedorapeople.org/packages/procenv/procenv.spec https://jamesodhunt.fedorapeople.org/packages/procenv/procenv-0.41-1.fc23.src.rpm Is there any hope we can get this package into Fedora? -- 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 1107127] Review Request: procenv - Utility to show process environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107127 Orion Poplawski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||or...@cora.nwra.com --- Comment #10 from Orion Poplawski --- FYI - perl-JSON-PP is in RHEL7. -- 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 1107127] Review Request: procenv - Utility to show process environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107127 --- Comment #9 from Dave Love --- SPEC URL: https://loveshack.fedorapeople.org/review/procenv.spec SRPM URL: https://loveshack.fedorapeople.org/review/procenv-0.40-1.el5.src.rpm -- 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 1107127] Review Request: procenv - Utility to show process environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107127 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added CC||panem...@gmail.com Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | --- Comment #8 from Parag AN(पराग) --- FE-NEEDSPONSOR should have been removed when this package submitter has been sponsored into packager. 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 1107127] Review Request: procenv - Utility to show process environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107127
--- Comment #7 from Dave Love ---
(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #5)
> > I notice that the RPM tries to use the user dlove.
>
> It would be similar with your own src.rpm packages, because it's entirely
> normal for the included files to be owned by the user that builds the
> src.rpm, e.g. "mockbuild" or your ordinary user account.
Yes, and presumably the version that's eventually distributed will be
different anyhow. The tarball will have arbitrary file ownerships too.
> %doc
>
> An empty %doc line makes no sense, since it's a no-op.
Thanks. It wasn't meant to be empty.
> > %{_mandir}/man1/procenv.1.gz
>
> Not a big issue, but prefer
>
> %{_mandir}/man1/procenv.1*
>
> to allow for disabled/changed/customized compression of manual pages.
Yes, that's what I do these days. Now I've got space there, I've uploaded new
versions to:
https://loveshack.fedorapeople.org/review/procenv-0.35-3.el6.src.rpm
https://loveshack.fedorapeople.org/review/procenv.spec
--
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 1107127] Review Request: procenv - Utility to show process environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107127 --- Comment #6 from Dave Love --- (In reply to Jerry James from comment #1) > If your potential sponsor won't be available for awhile, I can fill in. Could you do that? Thanks. -- 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 1107127] Review Request: procenv - Utility to show process environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107127
--- Comment #5 from Michael Schwendt ---
> I notice that the RPM tries to use the user dlove.
It would be similar with your own src.rpm packages, because it's entirely
normal for the included files to be owned by the user that builds the src.rpm,
e.g. "mockbuild" or your ordinary user account.
> $ strings ./srpm/procenv-0.35-2.el6.src.rpm | grep dlove
Examine: rpm -qlvp procenv-0.35-2.el6.src.rpm
> %doc
An empty %doc line makes no sense, since it's a no-op.
> %{_mandir}/man1/procenv.1.gz
Not a big issue, but prefer
%{_mandir}/man1/procenv.1*
to allow for disabled/changed/customized compression of manual pages.
--
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 1107127] Review Request: procenv - Utility to show process environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107127
Ryan Brown changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rybr...@redhat.com
--- Comment #4 from Ryan Brown ---
I notice that the RPM tries to use the user dlove.
=== from results/root.log ===
DEBUG util.py:331: Executing command: ['rpm', '-Uvh', '--nodeps',
'/builddir/build/originals/procenv-0.35-2.el6.src.rpm'] with env {'LANG':
'en_US.UTF-8', 'TERM': 'vt100', 'SHELL': '/bin/bash', 'CCACHE_DIR':
'/tmp/ccache', 'HOSTNAME': 'mock', 'PROMPT_COMMAND': 'echo -n ""',
'HOME': '/builddir', 'PATH': '/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin', 'CCACHE_UMASK':
'002'}
DEBUG util.py:281: Updating / installing...
DEBUG util.py:281: procenv-0.35-2.el6warning: user dlove
does not exist - using root
DEBUG util.py:281:
DEBUG util.py:281: warning: user dlove does not exist - using root
DEBUG util.py:371: Child return code was: 0
=== end results/root.log snippet ===
Running the command "strings" on the srpm shows two occurrences of "dlove"
$ strings ./srpm/procenv-0.35-2.el6.src.rpm | grep dlove
dlove
dlove
It seems like during your build process you included your own user as a file
owner.
--
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 1107127] Review Request: procenv - Utility to show process environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107127 Susi Lehtola changed: What|Removed |Added CC||susi.leht...@iki.fi --- Comment #3 from Susi Lehtola --- I can fill in as well if necessary. -- 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 1107127] Review Request: procenv - Utility to show process environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107127 --- Comment #2 from Dave Love --- Thanks. I obviously should have checked it properly. There's no need for autotools either. The RHEL6 version of rpmlint didn't spot the date error; I wonder how it got like that. Anyhow, I've fixed the spec and srpm. -- 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 1107127] Review Request: procenv - Utility to show process environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107127 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added CC||loganje...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Jerry James --- You don't need to have BuildRequires for packages on this list: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 In particular, drop the BuildRequires for gcc and make. Also, rpmlint complains: procenv.src: E: specfile-error warning: bogus date in %changelog: Wed Nov 14 2013 Dave Love - 0.27-1 If your potential sponsor won't be available for awhile, I can fill in. I have a soft spot for Emacs developers. :-) -- 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 1107127] Review Request: procenv - Utility to show process environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107127 Dave Love changed: What|Removed |Added CC||d.l...@liv.ac.uk Blocks||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
