[Bug 1116071] Review Request: libpsl - C library for the Publix Suffix List
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116071 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|libpsl-0.5.1-1.fc19 |libpsl-0.5.1-1.fc20 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System --- libpsl-0.5.1-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 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 1116071] Review Request: libpsl - C library for the Publix Suffix List
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116071 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||libpsl-0.5.1-1.fc19 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2014-08-15 20:29:26 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- libpsl-0.5.1-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 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 1116071] Review Request: libpsl - C library for the Publix Suffix List
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116071 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- Package libpsl-0.5.1-1.fc19: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing libpsl-0.5.1-1.fc19' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-9168/libpsl-0.5.1-1.fc19 then log in and leave karma (feedback). -- 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 1116071] Review Request: libpsl - C library for the Publix Suffix List
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116071 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- libpsl-0.5.1-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libpsl-0.5.1-1.fc19 -- 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 1116071] Review Request: libpsl - C library for the Publix Suffix List
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116071 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- libpsl-0.5.1-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libpsl-0.5.1-1.fc20 -- 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 1116071] Review Request: libpsl - C library for the Publix Suffix List
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116071 Jakub Čajka changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jca...@redhat.com --- Comment #12 from Jakub Čajka --- Created attachment 922911 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=922911&action=edit Added misising macro definition Hello, package fails to build for non rawhide Fedora, as spec file contains macro not existing in previous versions of Fedora. Same issue as tiptop BZ 1122009. In attachment is patch defining it for Fedora versions < 21. Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7218847 (f21) VS http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7218908 (f20) VS http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7219630 (f20 with patch) -- 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 1116071] Review Request: libpsl - C library for the Publix Suffix List
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116071 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- libpsl-0.5.0-2.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libpsl-0.5.0-2.fc19 -- 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 1116071] Review Request: libpsl - C library for the Publix Suffix List
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116071 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 1116071] Review Request: libpsl - C library for the Publix Suffix List
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116071 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1116071] Review Request: libpsl - C library for the Publix Suffix List
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116071 --- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1116071] Review Request: libpsl - C library for the Publix Suffix List
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116071 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #9 from Christopher Meng --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: libpsl Short Description: C library for the Publix Suffix List Upstream URL: https://rockdaboot.github.io/libpsl Owners: cicku Branches: f19 f20 f21 el6 epel7 -- 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 1116071] Review Request: libpsl - C library for the Publix Suffix List
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116071 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1116071] Review Request: libpsl - C library for the Publix Suffix List
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116071 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla --- WARNING: "wget-ow...@fedoraproject.org" is not a valid FAS account. -- 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 1116071] Review Request: libpsl - C library for the Publix Suffix List
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116071 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Christopher Meng --- Thaaanxx! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: libpsl Short Description: C library for the Publix Suffix List Upstream URL: https://rockdaboot.github.io/libpsl Owners: cicku Branches: f19 f20 f21 el6 epel7 InitialCC: wget-ow...@fedoraproject.org -- 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 1116071] Review Request: libpsl - C library for the Publix Suffix List
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116071 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1123616 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1123616 [Bug 1123616] Build wget with libpsl -- 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 1116071] Review Request: libpsl - C library for the Publix Suffix List
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116071 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Jerry James --- Everything looks good now. This package is APPROVED. -- 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 1116071] Review Request: libpsl - C library for the Publix Suffix List
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116071 --- Comment #5 from Christopher Meng --- Ooops, I failed to see that ;) Same URLs with a new changelog entry. NEW SPEC URL: http://us-la.cicku.me/libpsl.spec NEW SRPM URL: http://us-la.cicku.me/libpsl-0.5.0-2.fc22.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 1116071] Review Request: libpsl - C library for the Publix Suffix List
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116071 --- Comment #4 from Jerry James --- You haven't fixed the problem described in comment 1. Executing(%build): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.1S6nnS + umask 022 + cd /builddir/build/BUILD + cd libpsl-0.5.0 + ./autogen.sh Can't exec "autopoint": No such file or directory at /usr/share/autoconf/Autom4te/FileUtils.pm line 345. autoreconf: failed to run autopoint: No such file or directory autoreconf: autopoint is needed because this package uses Gettext RPM build errors: error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.1S6nnS (%build) Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.1S6nnS (%build) Child return code was: 1 -- 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 1116071] Review Request: libpsl - C library for the Publix Suffix List
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116071 --- Comment #3 from Christopher Meng --- NEW SPEC URL: http://us-la.cicku.me/libpsl.spec NEW SRPM URL: http://us-la.cicku.me/libpsl-0.5.0-2.fc22.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 1116071] Review Request: libpsl - C library for the Publix Suffix List
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116071
--- Comment #2 from Jerry James ---
Issues:
1. The psl binary is in the libpsl-devel package. Is that tool only useful
for people developing applications that use libpsl? It seems to me that
that is not the case, and therefore this binary should go into a different
subpackage, called psl, or libpsl-tools, etc.
2. License tag (LGPLv2+) is incorrect. The actual license is MIT.
3. In spite of the gtk-doc and libxslt BuildRequires, I see this in the
configure output:
checking whether to build gtk-doc documentation... no
checking for GTKDOC_DEPS... no
checking whether to generate man pages... no
The first and third are because --enable-gtk-doc and --enable-man,
respectively, were not passed to configure. For the second, I see this in
config.log:
configure:17791: checking for GTKDOC_DEPS
configure:17798: $PKG_CONFIG --exists --print-errors "glib-2.0 >= 2.10.0
gobject-2.0 >= 2.10.0"
Package glib-2.0 was not found in the pkg-config search path.
Perhaps you should add the directory containing `glib-2.0.pc'
to the PKG_CONFIG_PATH environment variable
No package 'glib-2.0' found
Package gobject-2.0 was not found in the pkg-config search path.
Perhaps you should add the directory containing `gobject-2.0.pc'
to the PKG_CONFIG_PATH environment variable
No package 'gobject-2.0' found
This indicates that you need at least one of the following (all are
supplied by the same package):
BuildRequires: pkgconfig(glib-2.0)
BuildRequires: pkgconfig(gobject-2.0)
BuildRequires: glib2-devel
4. I don't see the point in including %{_datadir}/libpsl/test_psl.txt in
libpsl-devel. What purpose does that serve?
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]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
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.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jamesjer/1116071-libpsl
/review-libpsl/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
[x]: 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 20480 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]: Macr
[Bug 1116071] Review Request: libpsl - C library for the Publix Suffix List
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116071 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||loganje...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|loganje...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Jerry James --- A mock build for Rawhide fails: Executing(%build): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.m3KaPS + umask 022 + cd /builddir/build/BUILD + cd libpsl-0.5.0 + ./autogen.sh Can't exec "autopoint": No such file or directory at /usr/share/autoconf/Autom4te/FileUtils.pm line 345. autoreconf: failed to run autopoint: No such file or directory autoreconf: autopoint is needed because this package uses Gettext RPM build errors: error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.m3KaPS (%build) Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.m3KaPS (%build) Child return code was: 1 /usr/bin/autopoint is provided by gettext-devel, so apparently there is a missing BuildRequires. In fact, just change "BuildRequires: gettext" to "BuildRequires: gettext-devel", and everything is good. I will review the package with that change in place. -- 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
