[Bug 1410992] Review Request: git-phab - Git subcommand to integrate with phabricator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1410992

Troy Curtis  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW)
 Status|NEW |CLOSED
  Flags|needinfo?(igor.raits@gmail. |
   |com)|
 CC||t...@troycurtisjr.com
 Resolution|--- |NOTABUG
Last Closed||2022-12-26 21:46:33



--- Comment #4 from Troy Curtis  ---
Since the review stalled more than year ago, and the reporter is no longer
active, closing per the Stalled Review policy:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Package_review_policy/#submitter_not_responding



Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449
[Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter response
should be blocking this bug.
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1410992
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1410992] Review Request: git-phab - Git subcommand to integrate with phabricator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1410992

soumilka...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||soumilka...@gmail.com



--- Comment #3 from soumilka...@gmail.com ---
Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- Package installs properly.
  Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/


= MUST items =

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: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License, Version
 2", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "*No copyright* GNU
 General Public License". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output
 of licensecheck in /home/soumil/1410992-git-phab/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: 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.
[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]: 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[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.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
 justified.
[ ]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
 Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[ ]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
 publishes signatures.
 Note: gpgverify is not used.
[ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[ ]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[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
 

[Bug 1410992] Review Request: git-phab - Git subcommand to integrate with phabricator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1410992

Didik Supriadi  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Whiteboard|AwaitingSubmitter   |




-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Bug 1410992] Review Request: git-phab - Git subcommand to integrate with phabricator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1410992

Didik Supriadi  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||didiksupriad...@gmail.com
 Whiteboard||AwaitingSubmitter




-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Bug 1410992] Review Request: git-phab - Git subcommand to integrate with phabricator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1410992

Mattia Verga  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||mattia.ve...@protonmail.com
   Assignee|pmora...@redhat.com |nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Flags|fedora-review+  |needinfo?(igor.raits@gmail.
   ||com)



--- Comment #2 from Mattia Verga  ---
Review stalled, moreover the reporter account is not active anymore. Not sure
if there's a way to modify it so that the repository can be created with the
correct account.
I'm going to resetting the ticket status at the moment, but it may need a new
review ticket reported from the new user account.


-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Bug 1410992] Review Request: git-phab - Git subcommand to integrate with phabricator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1410992

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ppi...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|pmora...@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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1410992] Review Request: git-phab - Git subcommand to integrate with phabricator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1410992

Daniel Mach  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|pmora...@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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1410992] Review Request: git-phab - Git subcommand to integrate with phabricator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1410992

Pavlina Moravcova Varekova  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Pavlina Moravcova Varekova  ---
Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 3 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/pavlina/work/review/rev_004/1410992-git-phab/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.6/site-
 packages, /usr/lib/python3.6
[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
[-]: 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]: 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]: 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.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[x]: 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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
 justified.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
 Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[-]: 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.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section 

[Bug 1410992] Review Request: git-phab - Git subcommand to integrate with phabricator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1410992

Pavlina Moravcova Varekova  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1410992] Review Request: git-phab - Git subcommand to integrate with phabricator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1410992

Jaroslav Škarvada  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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1410992] Review Request: git-phab - Git subcommand to integrate with phabricator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1410992

Jaroslav Škarvada  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||jskar...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|pmora...@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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1410992] Review Request: git-phab - Git subcommand to integrate with phabricator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1410992
Bug 1410992 depends on bug 1410989, which changed state.

Bug 1410989 Summary: Review Request: python-phabricator - Phabricator API 
Bindings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1410989

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA



-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1410992] Review Request: git-phab - Git subcommand to integrate with phabricator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1410992

Igor Gnatenko  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||1410989
   ||(python-phabricator)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1410989
[Bug 1410989] Review Request: python-phabricator - Phabricator API Bindings
-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org