[Bug 1157794] Review Request: xpa - The X Public Access messaging system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1157794 Sergio Pascual sergio.pa...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2014-11-20 17:20:31 -- 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 1157794] Review Request: xpa - The X Public Access messaging system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1157794 --- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Complete. -- 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 1157794] Review Request: xpa - The X Public Access messaging system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1157794 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 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 1157794] Review Request: xpa - The X Public Access messaging system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1157794 Sergio Pascual sergio.pa...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #11 from Sergio Pascual sergio.pa...@gmail.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: xpa New Branches: devel Owners: sergiopr This is to unretire xpa in Rawhide -- 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 1157794] Review Request: xpa - The X Public Access messaging system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1157794 --- Comment #5 from Sergio Pascual sergio.pa...@gmail.com --- My mock rawhide builder seems broken (something about mesa and llvm), I have created the SRPm in F21, which ships tcl 8.6 as Rawhide Spec URL: http://guaix.fis.ucm.es/~spr/fedora/xpa.spec SRPM URL: http://guaix.fis.ucm.es/~spr/fedora/xpa-2.1.15-2.fc21.src.rpm I have added the isa macro to Requires and a -doc subpackage. I have send a mail upstream about the wrong FSF address. -- 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 1157794] Review Request: xpa - The X Public Access messaging system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1157794 --- Comment #6 from Christian Dersch chrisder...@gmail.com --- Yep, problem with mesa and llvm is known for rawhide, some changes in last day(s) :( -- 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 1157794] Review Request: xpa - The X Public Access messaging system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1157794 --- Comment #7 from Christian Dersch chrisder...@gmail.com --- Koji build on Rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7975595 -- 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 1157794] Review Request: xpa - The X Public Access messaging system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1157794
Christian Dersch chrisder...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from Christian Dersch chrisder...@gmail.com ---
Approved, should be fine :)
Greetings,
Christian
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package do not use a name that already exist
Note: A package already exist with this name, please check
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/xpa
See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names
=== This is retired version of this package = fine
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[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.
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:
Unknown or generated. 41 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/lupinix/1157794-xpa/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/tcl8.6
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/tcl8.6
[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.
[x]: 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 30720 bytes in 1 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 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]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the
[Bug 1157794] Review Request: xpa - The X Public Access messaging system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1157794 Sergio Pascual sergio.pa...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #9 from Sergio Pascual sergio.pa...@gmail.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: xpa New Branches: f21 f20 f19 Owners: sergiopr This is to unretire xpa -- 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 1157794] Review Request: xpa - The X Public Access messaging system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1157794 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 1157794] Review Request: xpa - The X Public Access messaging system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1157794 --- Comment #10 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 1157794] Review Request: xpa - The X Public Access messaging system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1157794 Christian Dersch chrisder...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||chrisder...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|chrisder...@gmail.com Flags||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 1157794] Review Request: xpa - The X Public Access messaging system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1157794 --- Comment #2 from Christian Dersch chrisder...@gmail.com --- Taken! Review will follow soon :) -- 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 1157794] Review Request: xpa - The X Public Access messaging system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1157794 --- Comment #3 from Christian Dersch chrisder...@gmail.com --- Koji builds, all successfully done: F19: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7967626 F20: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7967635 F21: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7967644 Rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7967660 -- 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 1157794] Review Request: xpa - The X Public Access messaging system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1157794
--- Comment #4 from Christian Dersch chrisder...@gmail.com ---
Review done. Package already looks fine :)
Some suggestions:
1.) Seperate -doc package
2.) You can remove Group tag from spec, it is obsolete
TODO:
1.) Inform upstream about wrong FSF address
2.) Check fully versioned dependency in subpackages
After you fixed this I will approve :)
Greetings,
Christian
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package do not use a name that already exist
Note: A package already exist with this name, please check
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/xpa
See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names
This is a retired package coming back = Fine
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[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.
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:
Unknown or generated. 41 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/packaging/1157794-xpa/licensecheck.txt
=== No GPL header in source files, but tar contains copy of LGPL and upstream
mentions license = Fine
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/tcl8.6
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/tcl8.6
=== Should be ok
[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 491520 bytes in 25 files.
=== Documentation goes into -devel, maybe -doc subpackage (suggestion)?
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
=== Builds fine on all primary architectures, see Koji builds above
[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 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
