[Bug 1418804] Review Request: gcovr - A code coverage report generator using GNU gcov

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418804

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2017-03-15 14:21:33



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
gcovr-3.3-4.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1418804] Review Request: gcovr - A code coverage report generator using GNU gcov

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418804

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
gcovr-3.3-4.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 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-2017-536ccade30

-- 
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 1418804] Review Request: gcovr - A code coverage report generator using GNU gcov

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418804

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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

[Bug 1418804] Review Request: gcovr - A code coverage report generator using GNU gcov

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418804



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
gcovr-3.3-4.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-536ccade30

-- 
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 1418804] Review Request: gcovr - A code coverage report generator using GNU gcov

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418804

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
gcovr-3.3-2.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 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-2017-536ccade30

-- 
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 1418804] Review Request: gcovr - A code coverage report generator using GNU gcov

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418804



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
gcovr-3.3-2.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-536ccade30

-- 
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 1418804] Review Request: gcovr - A code coverage report generator using GNU gcov

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418804

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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

[Bug 1418804] Review Request: gcovr - A code coverage report generator using GNU gcov

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418804



--- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/gcovr

-- 
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 1418804] Review Request: gcovr - A code coverage report generator using GNU gcov

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418804

Garrett Holmstrom  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|POST
  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #3 from Garrett Holmstrom  ---
That looks great!

-- 
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 1418804] Review Request: gcovr - A code coverage report generator using GNU gcov

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418804



--- Comment #2 from Neal Gompa  ---
I've switched to Python 3, rewrapped the description, and removed the
extraneous line from %files.

Spec URL: http://kinginuyasha.enanocms.org/downloads/gcovr.spec
SRPM URL: http://kinginuyasha.enanocms.org/downloads/gcovr-3.3-2.fc25.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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1418804] Review Request: gcovr - A code coverage report generator using GNU gcov

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418804

Garrett Holmstrom  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||gho...@fedoraproject.org
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|gho...@fedoraproject.org
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #1 from Garrett Holmstrom  ---
Mandatory review guidelines:
NO - rpmlint output:
 gcovr.src: E: description-line-too-long C human-readable summary reports,
machine readable XML reports (in Cobertura format)
 gcovr.src: E: description-line-too-long C alternative to the lcov utility,
which runs gcov and generates an HTML-formatted report.
 gcovr.src:45: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
ok - Spec file name matches base package name
ok - License is acceptable (BSD)
ok - License field in spec is correct
ok - License files included in package if included in source package
ok - License files installed when any subpackage combination is installed
ok - Spec written in American English
ok - Spec is legible
ok - Sources match upstream unless altered to fix permissibility issues
 Upstream SHA256:
   8a60ba6242d67a58320e9e16630d80448ef6d5284fda5fb3eff927b63c8b04a2
 Your SHA256:
   8a60ba6242d67a58320e9e16630d80448ef6d5284fda5fb3eff927b63c8b04a2
ok - Build succeeds on at least one primary arch
ok - BuildRequires correct, justified where necessary
-- - Locales handled with %find_lang, not %_datadir/locale/*
-- - %post, %postun call ldconfig if package contains shared .so files
-- - Bundled libs handled correctly
-- - Relocatability is justified
ok - Package owns all directories it creates
-- - Package requires others for directories it uses but does not own
ok - No duplication in %files unless necessary for license files
ok - File permissions are sane
ok - Package contains permissible code or content
-- - Large docs go in -doc subpackage
ok - %doc files not required at runtime
-- - Static libs go in -static package or virtual Provides
-- - Development files go in -devel package
-- - -devel packages Require base with fully-versioned dependency, %_isa
ok - No .la files
-- - GUI app uses .desktop file, installs it with desktop-file-install
ok - File list does not conflict with other packages' without justification
ok - File names are valid UTF-8

Optional review guidelines:
-- - Query upstream about including missing license files
no - Translations of description, summary
ok - Builds in mock
-- - Scriptlets are sane
-- - Subpackages require base with fully-versioned dependency if sensible
-- - .pc file subpackage placement is sensible
ok - No file deps outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin
-- - Include man pages if available

Naming guidelines:
ok - Package names use only a-zA-Z0-9-._+ subject to restrictions on -._+
ok - Package names are sane
ok - No naming conflicts
ok - Version is sane
ok - Version does not contain ~
ok - Release is sane
ok - %dist tag
ok - Case used only when necessary
ok - Package names follow applicable language/addon rules

Packaging guidelines:
ok - Useful without external bits
ok - No kmods
ok - Pre-built binaries, libs removed in %prep
ok - Sources contain only redistributable code or content
 Upstream bundles bits of virtualenv, but those are not used or installed.
-- - Pre-generated code contains original sources
ok - Spec format is sane
-- - noarch package with unported deps has correct ExclusiveArch
-- - Arch-specific sources/patches are applied, not included, conditionally
ok - Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir, /run, /usr/target
-- - %{_prefix}/lib only used for multilib-exempt packages
-- - Programs run before FS mounting use /run instead of /var/run
ok - No files under /srv, /usr/local, /home
-- - Files under /opt constrained to an approved /opt/fedora subdir
ok - File dependencies not broken by /usr move
ok - No BuildRoot, Group, %clean, Packager, Vendor, Copyright, Prereq
ok - Summary does not end in a period
ok - Requires correct, justified where necessary
-- - Recommends, Suggests, Supplements, Enhances are sane
ok - No boolean dependencies
-- - Automatic Requires, Provides filtered if necessary
ok - BuildRequires lack %{_isa}
-- - BuildRequires: pkgconfig(foo) where necessary
ok - Summary, description do not use trademarks incorrectly
ok - All relevant documentation is packaged, appropriately marked with %doc
 doc/guide.txt is included; the remainder require lots of build deps
ok - Relative path %doc files and %_pkgdocdir not mixed
-- - Doc files do not drag in extra dependencies (e.g. due to +x)
ok - Changelog in a prescribed format
-- - Code compilable with gcc is compiled with gcc
-- - Build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise
-- - PIE used for long-running/root daemons,