[Bug 1780709] Review Request: wsdd - Web Services Dynamic Discovery host daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1780709 Mattia Verga changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2021-07-18 14:28:07 --- Comment #8 from Mattia Verga --- Package is in repos -- 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 1780709] Review Request: wsdd - Web Services Dynamic Discovery host daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1780709 --- Comment #7 from Robert-André Mauchin --- *** Bug 1805854 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- 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 1780709] Review Request: wsdd - Web Services Dynamic Discovery host daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1780709 --- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/wsdd -- 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 1780709] Review Request: wsdd - Web Services Dynamic Discovery host daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1780709 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Refreshed the 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 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 1780709] Review Request: wsdd - Web Services Dynamic Discovery host daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1780709 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review+ |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 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 1780709] Review Request: wsdd - Web Services Dynamic Discovery host daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1780709 --- Comment #4 from sam.pat...@rackspace.com --- Hello, I missed the deadline for requesting a new git module and branches for this package: $ fedpkg request-repo wsdd 1780709 Could not execute request_repo: The Bugzilla bug's review was approved over 60 days ago In the time between the upstream project has released a new version which I've packaged here: Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/survient/wsdd/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01248579-wsdd/wsdd.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/survient/wsdd/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01248579-wsdd/wsdd-0.5-2.fc33.src.rpm Am I able to get this refreshed? If any changes are needed please let me know. Thanks and apologies for the confusion. -- 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 1780709] Review Request: wsdd - Web Services Dynamic Discovery host daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1780709 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin --- 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 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 1780709] Review Request: wsdd - Web Services Dynamic Discovery host daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1780709 sam.pat...@rackspace.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sam.pat...@rackspace.com --- Comment #2 from sam.pat...@rackspace.com --- Thanks, I've added them here: Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/survient/wsdd/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01128218-wsdd/wsdd.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/survient/wsdd/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01128218-wsdd/wsdd-0.4-2.fc32.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 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 1780709] Review Request: wsdd - Web Services Dynamic Discovery host daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1780709
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- You need to add the SystemD scriptlets:
BuildRequires: systemd-rpm-macros
[…]
%post
%systemd_post wsdd.service
%preun
%systemd_preun wsdd.service
%postun
%systemd_postun_with_restart wsdd.service
See
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/#_systemd
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and
systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files.
Note: Systemd service file(s) in wsdd
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/Scriptlets/#_scriptlets
= 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: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License". 8 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/wsdd/review-wsdd/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 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: 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]: 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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for
