[Bug 1206639] Review Request: dibbler - Portable DHCPv6 implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206639 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|dibbler-1.0.1-0.RC1.2.fc22 |dibbler-1.0.1-0.RC1.2.el7 --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- dibbler-1.0.1-0.RC1.2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 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 1206639] Review Request: dibbler - Portable DHCPv6 implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206639 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|dibbler-1.0.1-0.RC1.2.fc21 |dibbler-1.0.1-0.RC1.2.fc22 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- dibbler-1.0.1-0.RC1.2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 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 1206639] Review Request: dibbler - Portable DHCPv6 implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206639 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version||dibbler-1.0.1-0.RC1.2.fc20 Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |ERRATA --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- dibbler-1.0.1-0.RC1.2.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 1206639] Review Request: dibbler - Portable DHCPv6 implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206639 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|dibbler-1.0.1-0.RC1.2.fc20 |dibbler-1.0.1-0.RC1.2.fc21 --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- dibbler-1.0.1-0.RC1.2.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 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 1206639] Review Request: dibbler - Portable DHCPv6 implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206639 Ihar Hrachyshka ihrac...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2015-04-07 05:44:23 -- 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 1206639] Review Request: dibbler - Portable DHCPv6 implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206639 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- dibbler-1.0.1-0.RC1.1.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dibbler-1.0.1-0.RC1.1.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 1206639] Review Request: dibbler - Portable DHCPv6 implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206639 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- dibbler-1.0.1-0.RC1.1.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dibbler-1.0.1-0.RC1.1.fc22 -- 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 1206639] Review Request: dibbler - Portable DHCPv6 implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206639 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- dibbler-1.0.1-0.RC1.1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dibbler-1.0.1-0.RC1.1.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 1206639] Review Request: dibbler - Portable DHCPv6 implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206639 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- dibbler-1.0.1-0.RC1.1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dibbler-1.0.1-0.RC1.1.fc21 -- 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 1206639] Review Request: dibbler - Portable DHCPv6 implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206639 --- Comment #14 from Ihar Hrachyshka ihrac...@redhat.com --- Thanks Ralf! I've fixed the warning due to %check inside changelog. I've also included all directories for -docs package to clean properly. I guess I also should put sysconfdir there too (?). -- 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 1206639] Review Request: dibbler - Portable DHCPv6 implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206639 Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rc040...@freenet.de --- Comment #13 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de --- * Please fix the %-warnings - These warnings are not supposed to be ignored. * Check your *-docs package. It contains a number of unowned subdirectories = The package does not uninstall cleanly. -- 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 1206639] Review Request: dibbler - Portable DHCPv6 implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206639 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- dibbler-1.0.1-0.RC1.2.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dibbler-1.0.1-0.RC1.2.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 1206639] Review Request: dibbler - Portable DHCPv6 implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206639 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- dibbler-1.0.1-0.RC1.2.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dibbler-1.0.1-0.RC1.2.fc22 -- 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 1206639] Review Request: dibbler - Portable DHCPv6 implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206639 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- dibbler-1.0.1-0.RC1.2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dibbler-1.0.1-0.RC1.2.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 1206639] Review Request: dibbler - Portable DHCPv6 implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206639 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- dibbler-1.0.1-0.RC1.2.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dibbler-1.0.1-0.RC1.2.fc21 -- 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 1206639] Review Request: dibbler - Portable DHCPv6 implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206639 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||panem...@gmail.com --- Comment #19 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com --- ihrachyshka, actually when you use '%' character in spec changelog, you should use it twice '%%' to silent the rpmlint warning. You can follow this next time you use % in changelog. -- 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 1206639] Review Request: dibbler - Portable DHCPv6 implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206639 Ihar Hrachyshka ihrac...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Ihar Hrachyshka ihrac...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: dibbler Short Description: Portable DHCPv6 implementation Upstream URL: http://klub.com.pl/dhcpv6 Owners: ihrachyshka Branches: f20 f21 f22 epel7 InitialCC: ihrachyshka -- 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 1206639] Review Request: dibbler - Portable DHCPv6 implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206639 Patrick Uiterwijk puiterw...@redhat.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 1206639] Review Request: dibbler - Portable DHCPv6 implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206639 --- Comment #8 from Patrick Uiterwijk puiterw...@redhat.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 1206639] Review Request: dibbler - Portable DHCPv6 implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206639 --- Comment #5 from Ihar Hrachyshka ihrac...@redhat.com --- Thanks all for review! For bad FSF address, I filed in http://klub.com.pl/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=316 Unit tests are currently failing in upstream, I've reported a bug: http://klub.com.pl/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=317 The updated package is at: - https://ihrachyshka.fedorapeople.org/dibbler-1.0.1-0.RC1.1.fc21.src.rpm - https://ihrachyshka.fedorapeople.org/dibbler.spec - https://ihrachyshka.fedorapeople.org/0001-fix-gtest-config-path.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 1206639] Review Request: dibbler - Portable DHCPv6 implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206639 Kashyap Chamarthy kcham...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Kashyap Chamarthy kcham...@redhat.com --- (In reply to Ihar Hrachyshka from comment #5) Thanks all for review! For bad FSF address, I filed in http://klub.com.pl/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=316 Thanks. We can proceed with package review. When upstream fixes it, you can make a new build Unit tests are currently failing in upstream, I've reported a bug: http://klub.com.pl/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=317 Thanks. As you noted the SPEC change log, when upstream fixes the bug, you can re-enable it back. The updated package is at: - https://ihrachyshka.fedorapeople.org/dibbler-1.0.1-0.RC1.1.fc21.src.rpm - https://ihrachyshka.fedorapeople.org/dibbler.spec - https://ihrachyshka.fedorapeople.org/0001-fix-gtest-config-path.patch Nice, `rpmlint` has gone down to 4 benign warnings, so please disregard them. - $ rpmlint dibbler-1.0.1-0.RC1.1.fc21.src.rpm dibbler.spec dibbler.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US stateful - tasteful, wasteful, fateful dibbler.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US autoconfiguration - auto configuration, auto-configuration, reconfiguration dibbler.src:161: W: macro-in-%changelog %check dibbler.spec:161: W: macro-in-%changelog %check 1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. - I issued another scratch build with the new SRPM, just out of practice. It was successful. So, looks good. Package 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 1206639] Review Request: dibbler - Portable DHCPv6 implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206639 --- Comment #4 from Kashyap Chamarthy kcham...@redhat.com --- [Human review below, for the items that were not part of auto-check.] Short - Just a few small items. (1) As Haïkel noted, please drop the 'Group' tags, they're not needed any more. (2) Trivial: Please fix these specific warnings (and obviously, ignore the ones flagged as 'spelling-error'): - 'wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding' warning by stripping the carriage returns by using the `sed` one-liners here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding - 'incorrect-fsf-address' -- It is indeed out of date, it's trivial, but it'd be nice to keep things updated. (3) %check: Upstream has 'tests' directory, Ihar, did you try to enable it? And, strictly speaking, we don't have to block the review on not having %check enabled -- we've done that in the past for many of the %OpenStack dependencies. (4) Can you please ensure the Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable aspect at the bottom of the review is taken care? More on it here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package (5) Timestamps: You might want to update the SPEC file to ensure timestamps are preserved? When adding file copying commands in the spec file, consider using a command that preserves the files' timestamps, eg. cp -p or install -p. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Timestamps And, I think we can safely ignore the last generic EXTRA item? Long Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed = 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: *No copyright* GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address), LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address), GPL (v2 or later), Unknown or generated, GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address), *No copyright* LGPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address), *No copyright* GPL (v2 or later), GPL (v1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address). 463 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/kashyapc/work/package- review/dibbler/licensecheck.txt - NOTE: You might want to notify upstream about the incorrect FSF address, we don't hold up the package for this, though. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /etc/dibbler, /usr/share/doc/dibbler/scripts, /usr/share/doc/dibbler, /usr/share/doc/dibbler/examples - NOTE: The above looks like false positive -- all the above directories are part of 'rpms-unpacked' [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/doc/dibbler/examples, /usr/share/doc/dibbler/scripts, /etc/dibbler, /usr/share/doc/dibbler - NOTE (kashyap): The above looks like false positive -- all the above directories are part of 'rpms-unpacked' [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. Note: Test run failed [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Test run failed [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Note: Test run failed [x]: Package complies to the
[Bug 1206639] Review Request: dibbler - Portable DHCPv6 implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206639 --- Comment #3 from Kashyap Chamarthy kcham...@redhat.com --- Created attachment 1008345 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1008345action=edit Successful Koji *scratch* build log -- $ koji build --scratch rawhide dibbler-1.0.1-0.RC1.fc21.src.rpm Uploading srpm: dibbler-1.0.1-0.RC1.fc21.src.rpm [] 100% 00:00:12 4.17 MiB 330.49 KiB/sec Created task: 9364297 Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9364297 Watching tasks (this may be safely interrupted)... 9364297 build (rawhide, dibbler-1.0.1-0.RC1.fc21.src.rpm): open (arm02-builder02.arm.fedoraproject.org) 9364298 buildArch (dibbler-1.0.1-0.RC1.fc21.src.rpm, armv7hl): open (arm02-builder22.arm.fedoraproject.org) 9364300 buildArch (dibbler-1.0.1-0.RC1.fc21.src.rpm, i686): open (buildvm-14.phx2.fedoraproject.org) 9364299 buildArch (dibbler-1.0.1-0.RC1.fc21.src.rpm, x86_64): open (buildhw-03.phx2.fedoraproject.org) 9364300 buildArch (dibbler-1.0.1-0.RC1.fc21.src.rpm, i686): open (buildvm-14.phx2.fedoraproject.org) - closed 0 free 3 open 1 done 0 failed 9364299 buildArch (dibbler-1.0.1-0.RC1.fc21.src.rpm, x86_64): open (buildhw-03.phx2.fedoraproject.org) - closed 0 free 2 open 2 done 0 failed 9364298 buildArch (dibbler-1.0.1-0.RC1.fc21.src.rpm, armv7hl): open (arm02-builder22.arm.fedoraproject.org) - closed 0 free 1 open 3 done 0 failed 9364297 build (rawhide, dibbler-1.0.1-0.RC1.fc21.src.rpm): open (arm02-builder02.arm.fedoraproject.org) - closed 0 free 0 open 4 done 0 failed 9364297 build (rawhide, dibbler-1.0.1-0.RC1.fc21.src.rpm) completed successfully -- -- 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 1206639] Review Request: dibbler - Portable DHCPv6 implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206639 Kashyap Chamarthy kcham...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kcham...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|kcham...@redhat.com -- 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 1206639] Review Request: dibbler - Portable DHCPv6 implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206639
--- Comment #1 from Kashyap Chamarthy kcham...@redhat.com ---
[Human review upcoming. Meanwhile, `fedora-review` tool output here for the
record.]
=== `fedora-review` tool output ===
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- 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.
Note: Cannot find LICENSE in rpm(s)
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[ ]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[ ]: 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:
*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address), LGPL
(v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address), GPL (v2 or later),
Unknown or generated, GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address),
*No copyright* LGPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address), *No
copyright* GPL (v2 or later), GPL (v1 or later) (with incorrect FSF
address). 463 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/kashyapc/work/package-
review/dibbler/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /etc/dibbler, /usr/share/doc/dibbler/scripts,
/usr/share/doc/dibbler, /usr/share/doc/dibbler/examples
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/doc/dibbler/examples,
/usr/share/doc/dibbler/scripts, /etc/dibbler, /usr/share/doc/dibbler
[ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: 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
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
Note: Test run failed
[ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Test run failed
[ ]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Note: Test run failed
[ ]: 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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]: No %config files under /usr.
[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.
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
[Bug 1206639] Review Request: dibbler - Portable DHCPv6 implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206639 Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||karlthe...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com --- Just few things: * Drop the Group tags, they're not needed anymore * the license warning in fedora-review report could be safely ignored as it doesn't know about %license yet I'll let you in the good hands of Kashyap then :) -- 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
