[Bug 1860064] Review Request: libglib-testing - GLib-based test library and harness
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860064 Bastien Nocera changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2020-08-27 14:49:18 --- Comment #7 from Bastien Nocera --- Built as libglib-testing-0.1.0-2.fc34 -- 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 1860064] Review Request: libglib-testing - GLib-based test library and harness
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860064 --- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libglib-testing -- 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 1860064] Review Request: libglib-testing - GLib-based test library and harness
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860064
--- Comment #5 from Bastien Nocera ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #4)
> URL:https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/pwithnall/libglib-testing
>
> →
>
> URL:https://gitlab.gnome.org/pwithnall/libglib-testing
Fixed.
> - Not needed anymore except EPEL7:
>
> %ldconfig_scriptlets
Fixed.
> - In order to avoid unintentional soname bump, we recommend not globing the
> major soname version:
>
> %{_libdir}/libglib-testing-0.so.0*
Fixed.
> - Split this at 80 characters as the package name extends by that:
>
> %description devel
> This package contains the pkg-config file and development headers
> for %{name}.
Done.
> - All minor things, so this package is approved but don't forget to fix the
> aforementioned issues before import.
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
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 1860064] Review Request: libglib-testing - GLib-based test library and harness
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860064
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
URL:https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/pwithnall/libglib-testing
→
URL:https://gitlab.gnome.org/pwithnall/libglib-testing
- Not needed anymore except EPEL7:
%ldconfig_scriptlets
- In order to avoid unintentional soname bump, we recommend not globing the
major soname version:
%{_libdir}/libglib-testing-0.so.0*
- Split this at 80 characters as the package name extends by that:
%description devel
This package contains the pkg-config file and development headers
for %{name}.
- All minor things, so this package is approved but don't forget to fix the
aforementioned issues before import.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
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", "GNU Lesser General Public License,
Version 2.1", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License", "GNU
Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later". 12 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/libglib-testing/review-libglib-
testing/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[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.
[x]: 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.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[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 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
[Bug 1860064] Review Request: libglib-testing - GLib-based test library and harness
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860064 --- Comment #3 from Bastien Nocera --- This is a dependency of malcontent, which is packaged here: https://hadess.fedorapeople.org/malcontent/ -- 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 1860064] Review Request: libglib-testing - GLib-based test library and harness
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860064 --- Comment #2 from Bastien Nocera --- > Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=47697124 Make that: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=47698432 The -devel package was uninstallable, this is fixed now. -- 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 1860064] Review Request: libglib-testing - GLib-based test library and harness
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860064 --- Comment #1 from Bastien Nocera --- Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=47697124 -- 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
