[Bug 1308779] Review Request: git-tools - Assorted git-related scripts and tools

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779



--- Comment #32 from Fedora Update System  ---
git-tools-0-0.2.20160313gitd6d55b3.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6
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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1308779] Review Request: git-tools - Assorted git-related scripts and tools

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779



--- Comment #31 from Fedora Update System  ---
git-tools-0-0.2.20160313gitd6d55b3.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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1308779] Review Request: git-tools - Assorted git-related scripts and tools

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779



--- Comment #30 from Fedora Update System  ---
git-tools-0-0.2.20160313gitd6d55b3.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 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 1308779] Review Request: git-tools - Assorted git-related scripts and tools

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779



--- Comment #29 from Fedora Update System  ---
git-tools-0-0.2.20160313gitd6d55b3.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 1308779] Review Request: git-tools - Assorted git-related scripts and tools

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779



--- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System  ---
git-tools-0-0.2.20160313gitd6d55b3.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 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 1308779] Review Request: git-tools - Assorted git-related scripts and tools

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2016-03-26 13:55:23



-- 
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 1308779] Review Request: git-tools - Assorted git-related scripts and tools

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779



--- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System  ---
git-tools-0-0.2.20160313gitd6d55b3.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23
testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this
bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-a10d0e27bc

-- 
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 1308779] Review Request: git-tools - Assorted git-related scripts and tools

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779



--- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System  ---
git-tools-0-0.2.20160313gitd6d55b3.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6
testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this
bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-87b1484ae7

-- 
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 1308779] Review Request: git-tools - Assorted git-related scripts and tools

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779



--- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System  ---
git-tools-0-0.2.20160313gitd6d55b3.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22
testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this
bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-6e7b9d3622

-- 
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 1308779] Review Request: git-tools - Assorted git-related scripts and tools

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779



--- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System  ---
git-tools-0-0.2.20160313gitd6d55b3.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7
testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this
bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-2a130054d0

-- 
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 1308779] Review Request: git-tools - Assorted git-related scripts and tools

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System  ---
git-tools-0-0.2.20160313gitd6d55b3.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24
testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this
bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-e5689781c0

-- 
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 1308779] Review Request: git-tools - Assorted git-related scripts and tools

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779



--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System  ---
git-tools-0-0.2.20160313gitd6d55b3.fc24 has been submitted as an update to
Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-e5689781c0

-- 
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 1308779] Review Request: git-tools - Assorted git-related scripts and tools

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779



--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System  ---
git-tools-0-0.2.20160313gitd6d55b3.fc23 has been submitted as an update to
Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-a10d0e27bc

-- 
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 1308779] Review Request: git-tools - Assorted git-related scripts and tools

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779



--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System  ---
git-tools-0-0.2.20160313gitd6d55b3.fc22 has been submitted as an update to
Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-6e7b9d3622

-- 
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 1308779] Review Request: git-tools - Assorted git-related scripts and tools

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779



--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System  ---
git-tools-0-0.2.20160313gitd6d55b3.el7 has been submitted as an update to
Fedora EPEL 7.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-2a130054d0

-- 
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 1308779] Review Request: git-tools - Assorted git-related scripts and tools

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779

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 1308779] Review Request: git-tools - Assorted git-related scripts and tools

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779



--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System  ---
git-tools-0-0.2.20160313gitd6d55b3.el6 has been submitted as an update to
Fedora EPEL 6.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-87b1484ae7

-- 
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 1308779] Review Request: git-tools - Assorted git-related scripts and tools

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779



--- Comment #17 from Greg Bailey  ---
(In reply to Patrick Uiterwijk from comment #16)
> After reading through this review, it looks like this has been quite
> thorough.
> 
> I will approve the package based on the previous review.

Thank you, Patrick.

-- 
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 1308779] Review Request: git-tools - Assorted git-related scripts and tools

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779

Patrick Uiterwijk  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||puiterw...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|puiterw...@redhat.com
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #16 from Patrick Uiterwijk  ---
After reading through this review, it looks like this has been quite thorough.

I will approve the package based on the previous 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 1308779] Review Request: git-tools - Assorted git-related scripts and tools

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779



--- Comment #13 from Anoop C S  ---
(In reply to Greg Bailey from comment #12)
> I checked out licensecheck against the git-tools README.md file on an Ubuntu
> machine, and the version there flags README.md as "README.md: *No copyright*
> UNKNOWN", even with the suggested addition you provided.I think it's

Really?
For me(on Fedora 23) when I added the mentioned text in README.md,
licensecheck(from devscripts v2.15.10) output was clean displaying (GPLv3 or
later).

> sufficient to say that the existing README.md references the correct
> license, and that that license matches GPLv3+ as specified in the .spec
> file.  I'm hesitant to submit a pull request for it upstream because it's
> essentially a change only to satisfy the fedora-review tool, and we can
> manually verify the license referenced in README.md anyway.

Yeah...Make sense. I just pointed out the reason. That's all.

> Regarding the version numbers, upsteam only has one lightweight tag,
> "v2015.2", and it's obviously a bit old.  There's a request to tag a new
> version:
> 
>   https://github.com/MestreLion/git-tools/issues/15
> 
> Since I don't know what that new tag will be ("v2016.3" or higher,
> presumably), I opted to use the version and release numbering suggestions
> given by:
> 
>  
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Pre-
> Release_packages

Ah.. You are right. Somehow I failed to understand it correctly. My bad.

> (See the provided example for the "kismet" RPM there). 
>
> My thinking was that once upstream releases "v2016.3" (or "v2016.4", etc.),
> then I would change the RPM Version tag to "2016.3" and use a RPM Release
> tag of "1", etc. from that point forward. 

Fine.

LGTM and good to go.
Thanks.

-- 
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 1308779] Review Request: git-tools - Assorted git-related scripts and tools

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779



--- Comment #14 from Greg Bailey  ---
(In reply to Anoop C S from comment #13)
> (In reply to Greg Bailey from comment #12)
> > I checked out licensecheck against the git-tools README.md file on an Ubuntu
> > machine, and the version there flags README.md as "README.md: *No copyright*
> > UNKNOWN", even with the suggested addition you provided.I think it's
> 
> Really?
> For me(on Fedora 23) when I added the mentioned text in README.md,
> licensecheck(from devscripts v2.15.10) output was clean displaying (GPLv3 or
> later).

You are right, adding the suggested text makes the licensecheck output "clean"
on a Fedora 23 system, but my point was that adding the same suggested text
didn't appear to make the output clean when run on a non-Fedora system...

> 
> LGTM and good to go.
> Thanks.

Thank you for your time reviewing 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 1308779] Review Request: git-tools - Assorted git-related scripts and tools

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779

Anoop C S  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
  Flags|fedora-review?  |



--- Comment #15 from Anoop C S  ---
Sorry Greg,

Guidelines from the following link says that an unofficial reviewer must not
change the review request status other than adding himself to the CC list.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group#Show_Your_Expertise_by_Commenting_on_other_Review_Requests

So changing status back to NEW and removing the fedora-review flag...

-- 
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 1308779] Review Request: git-tools - Assorted git-related scripts and tools

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779



--- Comment #12 from Greg Bailey  ---
Hi Anoop,

Thanks for the analysis and pointers to further information re: licensecheck.

I checked out licensecheck against the git-tools README.md file on an Ubuntu
machine, and the version there flags README.md as "README.md: *No copyright*
UNKNOWN", even with the suggested addition you provided.  I think it's
sufficient to say that the existing README.md references the correct license,
and that that license matches GPLv3+ as specified in the .spec file.  I'm
hesitant to submit a pull request for it upstream because it's essentially a
change only to satisfy the fedora-review tool, and we can manually verify the
license referenced in README.md anyway.

Regarding the version numbers, upsteam only has one lightweight tag, "v2015.2",
and it's obviously a bit old.  There's a request to tag a new version:

  https://github.com/MestreLion/git-tools/issues/15

Since I don't know what that new tag will be ("v2016.3" or higher, presumably),
I opted to use the version and release numbering suggestions given by:

 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages

(See the provided example for the "kismet" RPM there).

My thinking was that once upstream releases "v2016.3" (or "v2016.4", etc.),
then I would change the RPM Version tag to "2016.3" and use a RPM Release tag
of "1", etc. from that point forward. 

Thanks again for your help!

-- 
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 1308779] Review Request: git-tools - Assorted git-related scripts and tools

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779

Greg Bailey  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Whiteboard||trivial



-- 
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 1308779] Review Request: git-tools - Assorted git-related scripts and tools

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779

Anoop C S  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|anoo...@redhat.com  |nob...@fedoraproject.org



-- 
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 1308779] Review Request: git-tools - Assorted git-related scripts and tools

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779



--- Comment #11 from Anoop C S  ---
Sorry, w.r.t version numbers I think I got it wrong in previous comment.

Some suggestions:
Version = 0.1 and Release = 3.20150315gitxxx
Version = 0.0.1 and Release = 1.20150315gitxxx

And don't forget to change changelog entries accordingly.

-- 
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 1308779] Review Request: git-tools - Assorted git-related scripts and tools

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779



--- Comment #10 from Anoop C S  ---
(In reply to Greg Bailey from comment #8)
> > licensecheck.txt on running fedora-review:
> > 
> > Unknown or generated
> > 
> > git-tools-ea095192bc4180cc89d56f650deaeb0cbfe1ae25/README.md
> 
> I'm not sure this is valid; the README.md specifies GPLv3+.

Here is the reason:
fedora-review tool uses licensecheck utility for checking the presence of
license related terms inside source file. See line number 733 from
https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/FedoraReview.git/tree/plugins/generic.py. And
looking through sources for licensecheck utility from debian I could see that
they are checking for specified lines. See the following links which proves
this argument.
https://github.com/Debian/devscripts/blob/master/scripts/licensecheck.pl#L623
https://github.com/Debian/devscripts/blob/master/scripts/licensecheck.pl#L656
You may need to include the following to get rid of this warning:

This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version.

One more suggestion (sorry for not mentioning this before):
Reading from rpm built it looks like git-tools is of version 0 and release 0.2
which is not correct. Would you mind changing the version to 0.1 and release to
3 in the spec file? So that it looks clean something like git-tools-0.1-3. Or
even you can have version = 0.1.1 and release = 3. If you can make this change,
I will give it a final round review afterwards.

Otherwise it looks good. Thanks for addressing the comments.

-- 
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 1308779] Review Request: git-tools - Assorted git-related scripts and tools

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779



--- Comment #9 from Anoop C S  ---
Hi Greg,

Thanks for your quick turn back.

I will do another round of review sometime today/tomorrow.

-- 
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 1308779] Review Request: git-tools - Assorted git-related scripts and tools

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779



--- Comment #8 from Greg Bailey  ---
(In reply to Anoop C S from comment #3)
> Hi Greg,
> 
> [1] rpmlint warns about missing man pages for git-restore-mtime-bare and
> git-restore-mtime-core binaries. Was that intentional? Please feel free to
> add man pages in case you missed.
> 
> git-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary git-restore-mtime-bare
> Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.
> 
> git-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary git-restore-mtime-core
> Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.

I've removed git-restore-mtime-bare and git-restore-mtime-core from packaging,
as they are intended for proof-of-concept purposes and not meant to be
packaged.

https://github.com/MestreLion/git-tools/commit/46b8cdf03b6a44d58f07207815df2eaa6b8e2f43

> [2] rpmlint also warns about mismatch in version from changelog entry and
> created binary rpm.
> git-tools.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1.20160215gitea09519
> ['0-0.1.20160215gitea09519.fc23', '0-0.1.20160215gitea09519']

Changelog entries fixed.

(In reply to Anoop C S from comment #5)
> licensecheck.txt on running fedora-review:
> 
> Unknown or generated
> 
> git-tools-ea095192bc4180cc89d56f650deaeb0cbfe1ae25/README.md

I'm not sure this is valid; the README.md specifies GPLv3+.

(In reply to Anoop C S from comment #6)
> Package Review
> ==
> 
> [-]: 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: You must have one LICENSE file in source.

Fixed (via upstream pull request)

> [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
> Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
> "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license.
> licensecheck.txt complains about two files under "Unknown or generated"
> section. See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779#c5
> Can you please correct this?

Fixed.  Not sure why README.md is listed.

> [!]: Changelog in prescribed format.
> Note: See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779#c3

Fixed.

> [!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
>  beginning of %install.
> Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required

Fixed; removed.

> Note: May be you can provide all reuqires in a single line.

Requires moved to single line.

> [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
> Note: See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779#c4.

rpmlint output is now clean.

> 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.
> Note: Please do so.

Done via pull request.

New package:

Spec URL: https://gbailey.fedorapeople.org/git-tools/0-0.2/git-tools.spec
SRPM URL:
https://gbailey.fedorapeople.org/git-tools/0-0.2/git-tools-0-0.2.20160313gitd6d55b3.fc23.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 1308779] Review Request: git-tools - Assorted git-related scripts and tools

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779



--- Comment #7 from Greg Bailey  ---
Thank you for the detailed review.

I will be submitting a pull request to upstream to remedy the licensing issues
you raised; I will then submit a new SPEC and SRPM with the other suggestions
as well.

thanks again!

-- 
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 1308779] Review Request: git-tools - Assorted git-related scripts and tools

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779



--- Comment #6 from Anoop C S  ---
Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated

= 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.
[-]: 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: You must have one LICENSE file in source.

[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license.
licensecheck.txt complains about two files under "Unknown or generated"
section. See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779#c5
Can you please correct this?

[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[!]: Changelog in prescribed format.
Note: See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779#c3

[!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required

[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.
Note: May be you can provide all reuqires in a single line.

[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[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 10240 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: See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779#c4.

[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]: 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.
Note: Please do so.

[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see below).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[?]: 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.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global 

[Bug 1308779] Review Request: git-tools - Assorted git-related scripts and tools

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779



--- Comment #5 from Anoop C S  ---
licensecheck.txt on running fedora-review:

GPL (v3 or later)
-
git-tools-ea095192bc4180cc89d56f650deaeb0cbfe1ae25/git-branches-rename
git-tools-ea095192bc4180cc89d56f650deaeb0cbfe1ae25/git-clone-subset
git-tools-ea095192bc4180cc89d56f650deaeb0cbfe1ae25/git-find-uncommitted-repos
git-tools-ea095192bc4180cc89d56f650deaeb0cbfe1ae25/git-rebase-theirs
git-tools-ea095192bc4180cc89d56f650deaeb0cbfe1ae25/git-restore-mtime
git-tools-ea095192bc4180cc89d56f650deaeb0cbfe1ae25/git-restore-mtime-core
git-tools-ea095192bc4180cc89d56f650deaeb0cbfe1ae25/git-strip-merge

Unknown or generated

git-tools-ea095192bc4180cc89d56f650deaeb0cbfe1ae25/README.md
git-tools-ea095192bc4180cc89d56f650deaeb0cbfe1ae25/git-restore-mtime-bare

-- 
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 1308779] Review Request: git-tools - Assorted git-related scripts and tools

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779

Anoop C S  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED



-- 
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 1308779] Review Request: git-tools - Assorted git-related scripts and tools

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779



--- Comment #4 from Anoop C S  ---
rpmlint.txt on running fedora-review:

Checking: git-tools-0-0.1.20160215gitea09519.fc24.noarch.rpm
  git-tools-0-0.1.20160215gitea09519.fc24.src.rpm
git-tools.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US repos -> ropes, reps,
repose
git-tools.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rebase -> rebate,
debase, re base
git-tools.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mtime -> mime, time,
m time
git-tools.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1.20160215gitea09519
['0-0.1.20160215gitea09519.fc24', '0-0.1.20160215gitea09519']
git-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary git-restore-mtime-core
git-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary git-restore-mtime-bare
git-tools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US repos -> ropes, reps,
repose
git-tools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rebase -> rebate,
debase, re base
git-tools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mtime -> mime, time, m
time
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 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 1308779] Review Request: git-tools - Assorted git-related scripts and tools

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779

Anoop C S  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|anoo...@redhat.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 1308779] Review Request: git-tools - Assorted git-related scripts and tools

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779

Anoop C S  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||anoo...@redhat.com



--- Comment #3 from Anoop C S  ---
Hi Greg,

Initial review comments on running rpmlint against source and binary rpms.

[1] rpmlint warns about missing man pages for git-restore-mtime-bare and
git-restore-mtime-core binaries. Was that intentional? Please feel free to add
man pages in case you missed.

git-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary git-restore-mtime-bare
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.

git-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary git-restore-mtime-core
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.


[2] rpmlint also warns about mismatch in version from changelog entry and
created binary rpm.
git-tools.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1.20160215gitea09519
['0-0.1.20160215gitea09519.fc23', '0-0.1.20160215gitea09519']

If you need version 0.1, then you need to make the following changes in spec
file:
Version:0.1
Release:1.20160215gitea09519%{?dist}

and changelog entry should include 0.1-1.20160215gitea09519


I will get back with more detailed review soon over weekend.

-- 
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 1308779] Review Request: git-tools - Assorted git-related scripts and tools

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779



--- Comment #2 from Greg Bailey  ---
Koji scratch builds:

rawhide
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13002100

f24
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13002125

epel7
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13002128

-- 
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 1308779] Review Request: git-tools - Assorted git-related scripts and tools

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308779



--- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
gbailey's scratch build of git-tools-0-0.1.20160215gitea09519.fc23.src.rpm for
rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13002100

-- 
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