[Bug 1199055] Review Request: mediawiki123 - A wiki engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199055 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||mediawiki123-1.23.9-1.el7 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2015-05-08 12:39:57 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System --- mediawiki123-1.23.9-1.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 1199055] Review Request: mediawiki123 - A wiki engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199055 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System --- Package mediawiki123-1.23.9-1.el7: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=epel-testing mediawiki123-1.23.9-1.el7' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-5903/mediawiki123-1.23.9-1.el7 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 1199055] Review Request: mediawiki123 - A wiki engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199055 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- mediawiki123-1.23.9-1.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mediawiki123-1.23.9-1.el7 -- 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 1199055] Review Request: mediawiki123 - A wiki engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199055 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |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 1199055] Review Request: mediawiki123 - A wiki engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199055 --- Comment #15 from Patrick Uiterwijk --- We can't build this for EL6 or 5: their PHP versions are too old. That's also why there's no mediawiki119 for EL5 (anymore. I tried to until someone pointed out the version issue). -- 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 1199055] Review Request: mediawiki123 - A wiki engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199055 --- Comment #14 from Orion Poplawski --- One comment/heads up - it looks like support for 1.19 is slated to end in May, so we may want this in EL6 (and 5?) later if that really happens. -- 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 1199055] Review Request: mediawiki123 - A wiki engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199055 --- Comment #13 from Patrick Uiterwijk --- 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 1199055] Review Request: mediawiki123 - A wiki engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199055 Patrick Uiterwijk 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 1199055] Review Request: mediawiki123 - A wiki engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199055 Patrick Uiterwijk changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #12 from Patrick Uiterwijk --- Thanks for the review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: mediawiki123 Short Description: A wiki engine Upstream URL: http://www.mediawiki.org/ Owners: puiterwijk Branches: 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 1199055] Review Request: mediawiki123 - A wiki engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199055
Andrea Veri changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review- |fedora-review+
--- Comment #11 from Andrea Veri ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- There are a good bunch of LICENSE and COPYING files (all of them seem
to be GPLv2 texts) around and we have the license text for the GPLv2 license
under %licenses already. Please get rid of the extra LICENSE and COPYING
files.
- CC-BY-SA is mentioned on the License field but not on the breakdown, please
fix.
- The keys.txt and the tarball signature are not used at build time as you
could
assume when seeing them on their respective Source field, please document
what
they are used for on the spec.
- The includes/libs/jsminplus.php file is correctly marked as being triple
licensed on the
breakdown but the License field still doesn't list it appropriately.
(i.e License: GPLv2+ and Public Domain and CC-BY-SA and MIT and ASL 2.0 and
BSD and GPLv3+ and (GPLv2+ or LGPLv2+ or MPL))
- The breakdown lists LGPLv2.1+, please refer to LGPLv2+ as per
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Good_Licenses,
as that's the correct short_name for the license in question.
= 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.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed: the
-doc
subpackage depends on the main package, please make sure to not drop the
dependency or
in case that will be needed make sure the licenses are added to the
subpackage as well.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec: a PACKAGE-LICENSING is used for this.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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.
[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]: 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
Perl:
[x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires: "use
{strict,warnings,Data::Dumper,Cwd"
were found and they do match the provided Requires.
Python:
[-]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg
[Bug 1199055] Review Request: mediawiki123 - A wiki engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199055 --- Comment #10 from Patrick Uiterwijk --- Spec URL: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org//mediawiki123.spec SRPM URL: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org//mediawiki123-1.23.8-1.fc21.src.rpm - Make the mw-config directory sane - Split documentation into -doc - Extend on package licensing -- 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 1199055] Review Request: mediawiki123 - A wiki engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199055
Andrea Veri changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review-
--- Comment #9 from Andrea Veri ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
- The doc/ directory is > than 1M in size, please consider moving it to its own
sub-package.
- The licenses breakdown should be more detailed, please provide a
PACKAGE-LICENSING
file containing a list of files (you can ideally use directories and
wildcards if you prefer making
sure that specific dir has no files licensed under a different license than
the one you are listing)
and their respective license.
- The package ships with 5 LICENSE files but none is showing under %license,
ideally we'd want them
renamed to something like LICENSE.$LICENSE_NAME on %license given we're
targeting EPEL 7. (which
should not need any patch for the new %license field to work properly as per
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/411)
- As Orion pointed out /var/www/mediawiki123 contains a mw-config dir and
within it another
mw-config dir in the form of a symlink.
- File includes/libs/jsminplus.php seems to be triple licensed (MPL 1.1/GPL
2.0/LGPL 2.1) but no mention of it
appears under License.
- Latest release is not installed, the chosen release seems to be a LTS which
makes sense for our target. This
comment is purely informative.
= 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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
[X]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[X]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[X]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[X]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 (we're targeting EPEL 7
which ships with rpm 4.11.1)
[-]: 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.
[-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[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.
[X]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[X]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[X]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[X]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[X]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[X]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[X]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[X]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[X]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[X]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[X]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[X]: 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
Perl:
[X]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires: "use
{strict,warnings,Data::Dumper,Cwd"
were found and they do match the provided Requires.
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.
[X]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[X]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[X]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[X]: If the s
[Bug 1199055] Review Request: mediawiki123 - A wiki engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199055 --- Comment #8 from Orion Poplawski --- /var/www/mediawiki123/mw-config/ looks a little odd: ls -l /var/www/mediawiki123/mw-config/ total 12 -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 2063 Dec 17 13:21 index.php -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 984 Dec 17 13:21 index.php5 lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 33 Mar 19 11:58 mw-config -> /usr/share/mediawiki123/mw-config -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 2542 Dec 17 13:21 overrides.php -- 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 1199055] Review Request: mediawiki123 - A wiki engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199055 --- Comment #7 from Patrick Uiterwijk --- Since I'm aiming for EPEL7, here an EPEL7 koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9274658 -- 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 1199055] Review Request: mediawiki123 - A wiki engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199055 --- Comment #6 from Orion Poplawski --- Ah, I see that 1.23 is an LTS release. Nevermind. -- 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 1199055] Review Request: mediawiki123 - A wiki engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199055 --- Comment #5 from Orion Poplawski --- 1.24.1 is out. Should we switch to that? -- 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 1199055] Review Request: mediawiki123 - A wiki engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199055 Orion Poplawski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||florian.van.oudgaarden@gmai ||l.com --- Comment #4 from Orion Poplawski --- *** Bug 1142196 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- 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 1199055] Review Request: mediawiki123 - A wiki engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199055 Orion Poplawski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||or...@cora.nwra.com --- Comment #3 from Orion Poplawski --- Andrea - Are you going to review this? -- 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 1199055] Review Request: mediawiki123 - A wiki engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199055 --- Comment #2 from Patrick Uiterwijk --- Note: I'm only interested in EPEL7 for this package, so anything EL5/EL6-specific doesn't need to be reviewed (their PHP versions are too old anyway). -- 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 1199055] Review Request: mediawiki123 - A wiki engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199055 Patrick Uiterwijk changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|andrea.v...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Patrick Uiterwijk --- Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=914 -- 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
