[Bug 1247328] Review Request: sshrc - Bring your .bashrc, .vimrc etc. with you when you ssh
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1247328 William Moreno changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #14 from William Moreno --- Package Aproved Please note than the SCM request method has been deprecated. Please see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageDB_admin_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 1247328] Review Request: sshrc - Bring your .bashrc, .vimrc etc. with you when you ssh
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1247328 --- Comment #13 from Pranav Kant --- (In reply to William Moreno from comment #12) > I will not block your package for me missing manpe, the idea for ask about > that is tha Fedora packager must have a good with relationship so it a good > idea to send patches and a manpage it is a easy way to start. Thanks. I will add them soon, anyways. > > I will recomend to add a Provides: moshrc so your package provides two > binaries but are to small to make a subpackage. Yeah, thanks. I fixed it. Spec URL: https://pranvk.fedorapeople.org/packages/sshrc.spec SRPM URL: https://pranvk.fedorapeople.org/packages/sshrc-0.5-4.fc22.src.rpm -- 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 1247328] Review Request: sshrc - Bring your .bashrc, .vimrc etc. with you when you ssh
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1247328 --- Comment #12 from William Moreno --- I will not block your package for me missing manpe, the idea for ask about that is tha Fedora packager must have a good with relationship so it a good idea to send patches and a manpage it is a easy way to start. I will recomend to add a Provides: moshrc so your package provides two binaries but are to small to make a subpackage. -- 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 1247328] Review Request: sshrc - Bring your .bashrc, .vimrc etc. with you when you ssh
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1247328 Pranav Kant changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(pranav913@gmail.c | |om) | --- Comment #11 from Pranav Kant --- Hi William, Sorry for the delay. I was hoping that someone would write a man page upstream[1], and then I would include that here as a patch till they make a new release. I will wait for another week, and if no one does it, I will write one and include it by next week. Meanwhile, if there is anything else that needs to be fixed, let me know, and I can try fixing that. [1] https://github.com/Russell91/sshrc/issues/48 -- 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 1247328] Review Request: sshrc - Bring your .bashrc, .vimrc etc. with you when you ssh
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1247328 William Moreno changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pranav...@gmail.com Flags||needinfo?(pranav913@gmail.c ||om) --- Comment #10 from William Moreno --- Hi Any update here, do want to continue this 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 1247328] Review Request: sshrc - Bring your .bashrc, .vimrc etc. with you when you ssh
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1247328 --- Comment #9 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- jgrulich's scratch build of kdevelop?#c8e2b9bc57f11e41f3dc6612cdbcc591078d9062 for f22-candidate and git://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/kdevelop?#c8e2b9bc57f11e41f3dc6612cdbcc591078d9062 completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11212117 -- 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 1247328] Review Request: sshrc - Bring your .bashrc, .vimrc etc. with you when you ssh
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1247328
--- Comment #8 from William Moreno ---
Package Review
==
Hi
Sorry for the late feedback, this is a simple package, the spec looks good,
but there is some things than can improve the user experience:
1- Can you add a manpage? You can install the maneditor package in Fedora
and write a manpage, even a minimal manpage can improve the user experience,
if you write a manpage please ask upstream to merge it.
2- This package provides 2 binaries, sshrc and moshrc, I am not sure about
whow users will find the second binari based in the name and description
of the package, maybe if you write manpage for sshrc you can refer than
moshrc it is avaible too, note than you will need a man page for each binari.
The missing manpage is not a bloquer, but I want to ask if you can work in it.
= MUST items =
Generic:
PASS: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
PASS: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
PASS: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
PASS: Changelog in prescribed format.
PASS: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
NA: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
NA: Development files must be in a -devel package
PASS: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
PASS: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
PASS: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
PASS: Package does not generate any conflict.
PASS: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
PASS: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
PASS: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
PASS: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
PASS: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
PASS: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
PASS: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
PASS: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
PASS: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
PASS: Package installs properly.
PASS: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
PASS: 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.
PASS: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
PASS: Package must own all directories that it creates.
PASS: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
PASS: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
PASS: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
PASS: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
PASS: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
PASS: Dist tag is present.
PASS: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
PASS: Permissions on files are set properly.
NA: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
PASS: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
PASS: Package does not use a name that already exists.
PASS: Package is not relocatable.
PASS: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
PASS: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
PASS: File names are valid UTF-8.
PASS: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
NA: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
PASS: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
PASS: Latest version is packaged.
PASS: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
PASS: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
PASS: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
PASS: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
NA: %check is present and all tests pass.
PASS: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
PASS: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
PASS: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
PASS: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
PASS: Buildroot is not present
PASS: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
PASS: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /us
[Bug 1247328] Review Request: sshrc - Bring your .bashrc, .vimrc etc. with you when you ssh
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1247328 --- Comment #7 from Pranav Kant --- https://pranvk.fedorapeople.org/packages/sshrc.spec https://pranvk.fedorapeople.org/packages/sshrc-0.5-3.fc22.src.rpm -- 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 1247328] Review Request: sshrc - Bring your .bashrc, .vimrc etc. with you when you ssh
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1247328 --- Comment #6 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- If an options is given on the command line, e.g. "-z", it has special meaning for [. -- 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 1247328] Review Request: sshrc - Bring your .bashrc, .vimrc etc. with you when you ssh
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1247328 --- Comment #5 from Pranav Kant --- (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #1) > This is an accident waiting to happen. Proper quoting is required around $@. Makes sense. > [ $1 ] will go wrong if options are given on the command line. I don't really get this. Maybe you meant : "options are *not* given on the command line" ? But then again, I don't get how it can go wrong. I want the else part to get executed when there are no command line options, and it does execute fine for me. Could you please explain 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 1247328] Review Request: sshrc - Bring your .bashrc, .vimrc etc. with you when you ssh
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1247328 William Moreno changed: What|Removed |Added CC||williamjmore...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|williamjmore...@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 1247328] Review Request: sshrc - Bring your .bashrc, .vimrc etc. with you when you ssh
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1247328 --- Comment #4 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- Right. But what about the first part of comment #c1? -- 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 1247328] Review Request: sshrc - Bring your .bashrc, .vimrc etc. with you when you ssh
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1247328 --- Comment #3 from Pranav Kant --- Thanks. Spec URL: https://pranvk.fedorapeople.org/packages/sshrc.spec SRPM URL: https://pranvk.fedorapeople.org/packages/sshrc-0.5-2.fc22.src.rpm -- 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 1247328] Review Request: sshrc - Bring your .bashrc, .vimrc etc. with you when you ssh
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1247328 Eduardo Mayorga changed: What|Removed |Added CC||e...@mayorgalinux.com --- Comment #2 from Eduardo Mayorga --- - The missing dependencies are vim-commons and openssh-clients. - Add a %build section, even if empty, to silent the rpmlint warning. Rpmlint --- Checking: sshrc-0.5-1.fc24.noarch.rpm sshrc-0.5-1.fc24.src.rpm sshrc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) bashrc -> bash sshrc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) vimrc -> victim sshrc.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sshrc sshrc.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary moshrc sshrc.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) bashrc -> bash sshrc.src: W: spelling-erro.tar.gz 640r Summary(en_US) vimrc -> victim sshrc.src: W: strange-permission 0.5.tar.gz 640 sshrc.src: W: no-%build-section 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. -- 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 1247328] Review Request: sshrc - Bring your .bashrc, .vimrc etc. with you when you ssh
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1247328
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl
--- Comment #1 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ---
if [ $1 ]; then
command -v xxd >/dev/null 2>&1 || { echo >&2 "sshrc requires xxd to be
installed locally, but it's not. Aborting."; exit 1; }
sshrc $@
This is an accident waiting to happen. Proper quoting is required around $@. [
$1 ] will go wrong if options are given on the command line.
xxd is requires but it is not Required by anything.
rm -rf %{buildroot} is not necessary.
--
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
