[Bug 1125225] Review Request: alot - MUA based on notmuch mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1125225 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- alot-0.3.6-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. -- 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 1125225] Review Request: alot - MUA based on notmuch mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1125225 Tomas Tomecek ttome...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2014-08-12 08:00:46 --- Comment #12 from Tomas Tomecek ttome...@redhat.com --- Build for f20 passed: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=552357 Closing. -- 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 1125225] Review Request: alot - MUA based on notmuch mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1125225 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- alot-0.3.6-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/alot-0.3.6-1.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 1125225] Review Request: alot - MUA based on notmuch mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1125225 --- Comment #9 from Tomas Tomecek ttome...@redhat.com --- Flo, thank you for doing the 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 1125225] Review Request: alot - MUA based on notmuch mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1125225 Tomas Tomecek ttome...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from Tomas Tomecek ttome...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: alot Short Description: An experimental terminal MUA based on notmuch mail Upstream URL: https://github.com/pazz/alot/ Owners: ttomecek Branches: f20 f21 el6 epel7 InitialCC: -- 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 1125225] Review Request: alot - MUA based on notmuch mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1125225 --- Comment #11 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1125225] Review Request: alot - MUA based on notmuch mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1125225 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1125225] Review Request: alot - MUA based on notmuch mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1125225 --- Comment #7 from Tomas Tomecek ttome...@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://ttomecek.fedorapeople.org/alot-0.3.6-2/alot.spec SRPM URL: https://ttomecek.fedorapeople.org/alot-0.3.6-2/alot-0.3.6-2.fc20.src.rpm %changelog * %define - %global * update man page permissions * package NEWS, README and COPYING as docs -- 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 1125225] Review Request: alot - MUA based on notmuch mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1125225
Florian der-flo Lehner d...@der-flo.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from Florian der-flo Lehner d...@der-flo.net ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address), Unknown or
generated. 58 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/flo/review/1125225-alot/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/alot
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python2.7/site-
packages/alot
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 51200 bytes in 3 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 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]: 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
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= 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=7255211
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[Bug 1125225] Review Request: alot - MUA based on notmuch mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1125225 --- Comment #4 from Tomas Tomecek ttome...@redhat.com --- I have updated the srpm and spec file. Correct links: Spec URL: https://ttomecek.fedorapeople.org/alot-0.3.6/alot.spec SRPM URL: https://ttomecek.fedorapeople.org/alot-0.3.6/alot-0.3.6-1.fc20.src.rpm %changelog * alot was updated to 0.3.6 * remove bogus stuff from spec file * replace cp with install * update dependencies -- 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 1125225] Review Request: alot - MUA based on notmuch mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1125225 Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me changed: What|Removed |Added CC|i...@cicku.me | --- Comment #5 from Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me --- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25global_preferred_over_.25define -- 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 1125225] Review Request: alot - MUA based on notmuch mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1125225
--- Comment #6 from Florian der-flo Lehner d...@der-flo.net ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[!]: 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.
--- Please add COPYING, NEWS and README.md to %doc
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address), Unknown or
generated. 58 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/flo/review/1125225-alot/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/alot
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python2.7/site-
packages/alot
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[ ]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[ ]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[ ]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= 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=7249580
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
Note: %define requiring justification: %define owner
[Bug 1125225] Review Request: alot - MUA based on notmuch mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1125225 --- Comment #3 from Tomas Tomecek ttome...@redhat.com --- Hey Flo, thanks for taking the review. I think this should be really easy thing to do. (In reply to Florian der-flo Lehner from comment #1) Even if the latest version is just some hours old. This package contains not the latest one. Update it please and i will do a review. I haven't noticed that alot has a new upstream release, thanks for notifying me. Will definitely update it. Whats about %define ownerqwe asd and the %if ... %endif around it? Whoops. I was just testing something and forgot to remove it. Replace cp with install -p in the .spec to preserve timestamps. Sure thing. The license from ./extra/colour_picker.py is different to the rest of the files - please mention this. Well, stuff from extra/ is not being packaged: $ rpm -ql -p alot-0.3.6-1.fc20.noarch.rpm | grep extra | wc -l 0 Don't you want to ship it for python3, too? It's not compatible with python 3. I guess that I could try doing 2to3 before building it [1] but I would prefer to wait for upstream support of python 3. E.g. File alot/init.py, line 37 print alot.__version__ [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Running_2to3_from_the_spec_fil -- 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 1125225] Review Request: alot - MUA based on notmuch mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1125225 Florian der-flo Lehner d...@der-flo.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||d...@der-flo.net Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|d...@der-flo.net Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Florian der-flo Lehner d...@der-flo.net --- hi! Even if the latest version is just some hours old. This package contains not the latest one. Update it please and i will do a review. Whats about %define ownerqwe asd and the %if ... %endif around it? Replace cp with install -p in the .spec to preserve timestamps. So far it builds successfully - http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7234399 The license from ./extra/colour_picker.py is different to the rest of the files - please mention this. Don't you want to ship it for python3, too? Cheers, Flo -- 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 1125225] Review Request: alot - MUA based on notmuch mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1125225 Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me changed: What|Removed |Added CC||i...@cicku.me --- Comment #2 from Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me --- https://pypi.python.org/pypi/alot/: Requires notmuch (=0.13), argparse (=2.7), urwid (=1.1.0), twisted (=10.2.0), magic, configobj (=4.6.0), subprocess (=2.7), gpgme (=0.2) -- 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
