[Bug 1234468] Review Request: envytools - Tools for people envious of nvidia's binary driver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1234468 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- envytools-0.0-0.3.git20150812.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 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 1234468] Review Request: envytools - Tools for people envious of nvidia's binary driver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1234468 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||0.0-0.3.git20150812.fc22 Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2015-08-22 18:49:56 -- 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 1234468] Review Request: envytools - Tools for people envious of nvidia's binary driver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1234468 Rafael Fonseca changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rdoss...@redhat.com --- Comment #11 from Rafael Fonseca --- Some issues: - envytools should have "ExcludeArch: s390 s390x". - libseccomp is not a hard requirement and it is not availabe on ppc. So the package should at least have %ifnarch ppc64 ppc64le BuildRequire: libseccomp %endif By doing that, the following warning is displayed: "Warning: demmt won't sandbox itself because libseccomp was not found" - on a x86 build, there are the following warnings: Warning: nvapy won't be built because of un-met dependencies (python and cython) warning: cupti_trace won't be built because of un-met dependencies (cuda and/or valgrind-mmt) -- 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 1234468] Review Request: envytools - Tools for people envious of nvidia's binary driver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1234468 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- Package envytools-0.0-0.3.git20150812.fc22: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing envytools-0.0-0.3.git20150812.fc22' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-13418/envytools-0.0-0.3.git20150812.fc22 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 1234468] Review Request: envytools - Tools for people envious of nvidia's binary driver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1234468 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- envytools-0.0-0.3.git20150812.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/envytools-0.0-0.3.git20150812.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 1234468] Review Request: envytools - Tools for people envious of nvidia's binary driver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1234468 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 1234468] Review Request: envytools - Tools for people envious of nvidia's binary driver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1234468 --- Comment #8 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 1234468] Review Request: envytools - Tools for people envious of nvidia's binary driver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1234468 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 1234468] Review Request: envytools - Tools for people envious of nvidia's binary driver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1234468 Hans de Goede changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Hans de Goede --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: envytools Short Description: Tools for people envious of nvidia's binary driver Upstream URL: https://github.com/envytools/envytools Owners: jwrdegoede Branches: f22 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 1234468] Review Request: envytools - Tools for people envious of nvidia's binary driver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1234468 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from gil cattaneo --- NON blocking issues: you should add also "%license COPYING" in the hwdocs sub 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 1234468] Review Request: envytools - Tools for people envious of nvidia's binary driver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1234468 --- Comment #5 from Hans de Goede --- Hi, (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #4) > 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 %license. > Note: License file COPYING is marked as %doc instead of %license > See: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text > FIXME > - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size > (~1MB) or number of files. > Note: Documentation size is 1105920 bytes in 181 files. > See: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation > FIXME > [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. > Note: %define requiring justification: %define gitdate 20150622 > FIXME Thanks for the quick and thorough review, all fixed, new version here: Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~jwrdegoede/envytools.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~jwrdegoede/envytools-0.0-0.2.git20150622.fc22.src.rpm I'll go and review your package now. Regards, Hans -- 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 1234468] Review Request: envytools - Tools for people envious of nvidia's binary driver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1234468 --- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo --- 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 %license. Note: License file COPYING is marked as %doc instead of %license See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text FIXME - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 1105920 bytes in 181 files. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation FIXME [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define gitdate 20150622 FIXME -- 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 1234468] Review Request: envytools - Tools for people envious of nvidia's binary driver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1234468
--- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo ---
Package Review
==
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 %license.
Note: License file COPYING is marked as %doc instead of %license
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
FIXME
- Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 1105920 bytes in 181 files.
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation
FIXME
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[?]: 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 40 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/gil/1234468-envytools/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[-]: 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]: 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 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]: Dist tag is present.
[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 does not use a name that already exists.
[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:
[-]: 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.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[x]: 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.
[?]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[!]: Spec use %global instead of %define
[Bug 1234468] Review Request: envytools - Tools for people envious of nvidia's binary driver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1234468
--- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo ---
There is for now only a non blocking issues:
...
cp -p COPYING $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_docdir}/%{name}
...
%doc %{_docdir}/%{name}
you should use %license macro
--
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 1234468] Review Request: envytools - Tools for people envious of nvidia's binary driver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1234468 --- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo --- can you take this https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228172 ? -- 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 1234468] Review Request: envytools - Tools for people envious of nvidia's binary driver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1234468 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added CC||punto...@libero.it Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|punto...@libero.it 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
