[Bug 561470] Review Request: beakerlib - shell-level integration testing library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561470 Petr Muller pmul...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #33 from Petr Muller pmul...@redhat.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: beakerlib New Branches: el5 el6 epel7 Owners: afri Just want to maintain this package in EPEL too -- You are receiving this mail because: 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 561470] Review Request: beakerlib - shell-level integration testing library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561470 --- Comment #34 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: 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 561470] Review Request: beakerlib - shell-level integration testing library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561470 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: 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 561470] Review Request: beakerlib - shell-level integration testing library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561470 --- Comment #32 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2010-06-01 14:16:03 EDT --- beakerlib-1.3-1.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 561470] Review Request: beakerlib - shell-level integration testing library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561470 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||beakerlib-1.3-1.fc13 Resolution||ERRATA -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 561470] Review Request: beakerlib - shell-level integration testing library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561470 --- Comment #31 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2010-05-31 08:28:03 EDT --- beakerlib-1.3-1.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/beakerlib-1.3-1.fc13 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 561470] Review Request: beakerlib - shell-level integration testing library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561470 Petr Muller pmul...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #29 from Petr Muller pmul...@redhat.com 2010-05-25 11:34:55 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: beakerlib Short Description: A shell-level integration testing library Owners: afri Branches: F-13 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 561470] Review Request: beakerlib - shell-level integration testing library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561470 --- Comment #28 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2010-05-19 12:08:24 EDT --- Sorry for the delay, I was off traveling. ;( I have sponsored you now. Please continue from https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join#Add_Package_to_CVS_and_Set_Owner If you have any questions at all, please feel free to email me or catch me on irc (my nick is 'nirik'). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 561470] Review Request: beakerlib - shell-level integration testing library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561470 --- Comment #27 from Petr Muller pmul...@redhat.com 2010-05-14 09:59:33 EDT --- Kevin, Thanks for sponsoring. My FAS account name is 'afri'. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 561470] Review Request: beakerlib - shell-level integration testing library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561470 --- Comment #25 from Petr Muller pmul...@redhat.com 2010-05-12 07:51:44 EDT --- Kevin, first of all, thanks for reviewing! New links: http://www.afri.cz/files/beakerlib-1.3-1.fc12.src.rpm http://www.afri.cz/files/beakerlib.spec (In reply to comment #24) Issues: 1. Source doesn't match from upstream: 5e5ee854add958ce30746a15b9d7e713 beakerlib-1.2.tar.gz ae18ea068c48e82196ff6cd381e663d9 beakerlib-1.2.tar.gz.orig3 It should match now. The fact that we are also upstream (and we track the specfile in repo, and it then gets in the tarball) makes this a bit complicated to maintain, because the tarball changes everytime I change even the specfile. 2. rpmlint says: Probibly all these should be chmod 644 or have a #!/bin/sh added if they should be called stand alone: beakerlib.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/beakerlib/analyze.sh beakerlib.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/beakerlib/beakerlib.sh beakerlib.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/beakerlib/dictionary.vim beakerlib.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/beakerlib/infrastructure.sh beakerlib.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/beakerlib/journal.sh beakerlib.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/beakerlib/logging.sh beakerlib.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/beakerlib/performance.sh beakerlib.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/beakerlib/rpms.sh beakerlib.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/beakerlib/testing.sh beakerlib.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/beakerlib/virtualX.sh Not intended for standalone calling, I've fixed the perms. This can be ignored, but it would be nice to have man pages for these: beakerlib.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary beakerlib-deja-summarize beakerlib.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary beakerlib-journalcmp beakerlib.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary beakerlib-journalling beakerlib.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary beakerlib-rlMemAvg beakerlib.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary beakerlib-rlMemPeak Good suggestion. We'll try to write something for the ones which are supposed to be executed directly, not from inside Beakerlib All these should be mode 644: beakerlib.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/beakerlib-1.2/LICENSE beakerlib.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/beakerlib.1.gz beakerlib.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/beakerlib-analyze.1.gz beakerlib.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/beakerlib-beakerlib.1.gz beakerlib.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/beakerlib-infrastructure.1.gz beakerlib.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/beakerlib-journal.1.gz beakerlib.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/beakerlib-logging.1.gz beakerlib.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/beakerlib-performance.1.gz beakerlib.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/beakerlib-rpms.1.gz beakerlib.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/beakerlib-testing.1.gz beakerlib.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/beakerlib-virtualX.1.gz Perms fixed 3. Shouldn't this have a 'Requires: python2' ? Seems so. Added. 4. Should you add the examples as %doc files? Good idea, thanks! Added. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 561470] Review Request: beakerlib - shell-level integration testing library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561470 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #26 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2010-05-13 00:35:45 EDT --- 1. Looks good. 13df10e1b94c8a1abee91e9ef111dd29 beakerlib-1.3.tar.gz 13df10e1b94c8a1abee91e9ef111dd29 beakerlib-1.3.tar.gz.orig 2. Looks good. rpmlint now says: beakerlib.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary beakerlib-rlMemAvg beakerlib.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary beakerlib-rlMemPeak beakerlib.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary beakerlib-journalling beakerlib.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary beakerlib-journalcmp beakerlib.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary beakerlib-deja-summarize 3. Looks good. 4. Looks good. I don't see any further blockers here, so this package was APPROVED. I will go ahead and sponsor you. What is your Fedora Account system account? Once you are sponsored, you can continue the process at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join#Add_Package_to_CVS_and_Set_Owner -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 561470] Review Request: beakerlib - shell-level integration testing library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561470 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ke...@tummy.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #23 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2010-05-02 18:34:55 EDT --- Look for a full review in a bit. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 561470] Review Request: beakerlib - shell-level integration testing library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561470 --- Comment #24 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2010-05-02 18:46:52 EDT --- OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (GPLv2) OK - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. See below - Sources match upstream md5sum: 5e5ee854add958ce30746a15b9d7e713 beakerlib-1.2.tar.gz ae18ea068c48e82196ff6cd381e663d9 beakerlib-1.2.tar.gz.orig OK - BuildRequires correct See below - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package has rm -rf RPM_BUILD_ROOT at top of %install OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. OK - Package obey's FHS standard (except for 2 exceptions) See below - No rpmlint output. See below - final provides and requires are sane. SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version OK - Should not use file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin Issues: 1. Source doesn't match from upstream: 5e5ee854add958ce30746a15b9d7e713 beakerlib-1.2.tar.gz ae18ea068c48e82196ff6cd381e663d9 beakerlib-1.2.tar.gz.orig 2. rpmlint says: Probibly all these should be chmod 644 or have a #!/bin/sh added if they should be called stand alone: beakerlib.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/beakerlib/analyze.sh beakerlib.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/beakerlib/beakerlib.sh beakerlib.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/beakerlib/dictionary.vim beakerlib.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/beakerlib/infrastructure.sh beakerlib.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/beakerlib/journal.sh beakerlib.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/beakerlib/logging.sh beakerlib.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/beakerlib/performance.sh beakerlib.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/beakerlib/rpms.sh beakerlib.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/beakerlib/testing.sh beakerlib.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/beakerlib/virtualX.sh This can be ignored, but it would be nice to have man pages for these: beakerlib.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary beakerlib-deja-summarize beakerlib.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary beakerlib-journalcmp beakerlib.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary beakerlib-journalling beakerlib.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary beakerlib-rlMemAvg beakerlib.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary beakerlib-rlMemPeak All these should be mode 644: beakerlib.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/beakerlib-1.2/LICENSE beakerlib.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/beakerlib.1.gz beakerlib.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/beakerlib-analyze.1.gz beakerlib.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/beakerlib-beakerlib.1.gz beakerlib.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/beakerlib-infrastructure.1.gz beakerlib.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/beakerlib-journal.1.gz beakerlib.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/beakerlib-logging.1.gz beakerlib.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/beakerlib-performance.1.gz beakerlib.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/beakerlib-rpms.1.gz beakerlib.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/beakerlib-testing.1.gz beakerlib.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/beakerlib-virtualX.1.gz 3. Shouldn't this have a 'Requires: python2' ? 4. Should you add the examples as %doc files? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 561470] Review Request: beakerlib - shell-level integration testing library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561470 --- Comment #22 from Petr Muller pmul...@redhat.com 2010-04-29 10:15:19 EDT --- New links: http://www.afri.cz/files/beakerlib-1.2-1.fc12.src.rpm http://www.afri.cz/files/beakerlib.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 561470] Review Request: beakerlib - shell-level integration testing library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561470
--- Comment #21 from Petr Muller pmul...@redhat.com 2010-04-29 10:14:55 EDT
---
Thanks for your points!
(In reply to comment #19)
Some pedantic stuff:
o why start release with 0 and not 1?
Well, I tend to start everything from zero :) I will keep that in mind for the
next time
o remove trailing ; here:
%clean
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT;
done
o add a comment why %build is empty
added
o use INSTALL='install -p' in make install to preserve timestamps
fix'd
o it's very common to have documentation in %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version},
any reason not the follow that?
I've changed Makefiles and specfile to follow that.
(In reply to comment #20)
Petr: Can you address the questions in comment #19?
I can look at reviewing this formally and sponsoring you after that...
Sorry for the delay, I was travelling and I avoided computer stuff for a while
:)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 561470] Review Request: beakerlib - shell-level integration testing library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561470 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ke...@tummy.com --- Comment #20 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2010-04-19 14:22:11 EDT --- Petr: Can you address the questions in comment #19? I can look at reviewing this formally and sponsoring you after that... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 561470] Review Request: beakerlib - shell-level integration testing library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561470 James Laska jla...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(tcall...@redhat.c ||om) --- Comment #17 from James Laska jla...@redhat.com 2010-04-13 12:45:06 EDT --- Looks good Petr, thanks for the updates. I can confirm that shunit2 is no longer packaged with beakerlib, and from what I can tell, all license information appears kosher. # rpmlint beakerlib-1.2-0.fc13.noarch.rpm beakerlib-1.2-0.fc12.src.rpm beakerlib.spec 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. tcallawa: Any other packaging concerns you can think of? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 561470] Review Request: beakerlib - shell-level integration testing library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561470 Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(tcall...@redhat.c | |om) | --- Comment #18 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com 2010-04-13 12:59:58 EDT --- Nope. :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 561470] Review Request: beakerlib - shell-level integration testing library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561470
Terje Røsten terje...@phys.ntnu.no changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||terje...@phys.ntnu.no
--- Comment #19 from Terje Røsten terje...@phys.ntnu.no 2010-04-13 17:34:14
EDT ---
Some pedantic stuff:
o why start release with 0 and not 1?
o remove trailing ; here:
%clean
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT;
o add a comment why %build is empty
o use INSTALL='install -p' in make install to preserve timestamps
o it's very common to have documentation in %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version},
any reason not the follow that?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 561470] Review Request: beakerlib - shell-level integration testing library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561470 --- Comment #16 from Petr Muller pmul...@redhat.com 2010-04-08 09:59:35 EDT --- For now, I have removed the offending file entirely - we will replace it with a simple minilibrary which we will write. Or perhaps package shunit2, I don't know now, but I don't want this to be blocker of beakerlib in Fedor a. New links: http://www.afri.cz/files/beakerlib-1.2-0.fc12.src.rpm http://www.afri.cz/files/beakerlib.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 561470] Review Request: beakerlib - shell-level integration testing library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561470 --- Comment #14 from James Laska jla...@redhat.com 2010-03-24 13:59:20 EDT --- Thanks for the updates Petr. Those changes look good. While re-reviewing the licensing, I noticed that the file 'src/test/shunit2' lists LGPL in the header. There's the issue of lining up the licensing information of shunit2. Before handling lining up with the license in the header of 'src/test/shunit2', I think we need to clarify whether this constitutes bundling a library. Is this code upstream somewhere? Perhaps one of these projects? * shunit - http://shunit.sourceforge.net/ * shunit2 - http://code.google.com/p/shunit2/ Can you explain how shunit2 is used? The 'src/test/README' file doesn't seem to have correct links to the project. Either way, I suspect we might not be allowed to include another project inside beakerlib. I have a suspicion shunit2 would need to be packaged separately in Fedora. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 561470] Review Request: beakerlib - shell-level integration testing library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561470 Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tcall...@redhat.com --- Comment #15 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com 2010-03-24 14:07:40 EDT --- Yeah, you really do want to package shunit2 independently. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 561470] Review Request: beakerlib - shell-level integration testing library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561470
--- Comment #13 from Petr Muller pmul...@redhat.com 2010-03-22 13:11:38 EDT
---
(In reply to comment #12)
Spec URL: http://www.afri.cz/files/beakerlib.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.afri.cz/files/beakerlib-1.0-2.src.rpm
The src.rpm URL does not work, I've instead used
http://afri.fedorapeople.org/beakerlib/beakerlib-1.0-2.fc12.src.rpm
Sorry for that, I b0rked the filename. New ones:
http://www.afri.cz/files/beakerlib-1.1-0.fc12.src.rpm
http://www.afri.cz/files/beakerlib.spec
[ FAIL ] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package
beakerlib.src: W: invalid-url Source0: beakerlib-1.0.tar.gz
beakerlib.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: beakerlib-1.0.tar.gz
I believe you mixed the definitions of URL and Source0. The
following
patch resolves the problem accordingly.
Thanks for the patch - it should be fixed now.
Source0:https://fedorahosted.org/released/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
URL:https://fedorahosted.org/%{name}
$ rpmlint beakerlib-1.1-0.fc12.src.rpm beakerlib-1.1-0.fc12.noarch.rpm
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[ FAIL ] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the
actual license
beakerlib.spec noted GPLv2, however the following files included in
beakerlib show 'GPLv2 or later':
git_rules.mk:1:# License: GPL v2 or later
py_rules.mk:1:# License: GPL v2 or later
rpmspec_rules.mk:1:# License: GPL v2 or later
upload_rules.mk:1:# License: GPL v2 or later
scm_rules.mk:1:# License: GPL v2 or later
I think beakerlib.spec should note GPLv2+ or the *.mk files should
be adjusted
Fixed to GPLv2, one file was removed.
[ WARN ] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
It's common practice to include two newlines prior to each %section
in
the spec file. I'd recommend the same here for readability. Please
see the tool rpmdev-newspec (provided by rpmdevtools) or the spec
template included in vim now.
Thanks, I didn't know that. I've added empty lines between sections.
[ FAIL ] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for
this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package,
please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this.
The Source0 line must be a URL to the location of the source
upstream.
Something like (note, the URL will depend on the location you post
this, but I'd recommend anchored somewhere from your fedorahosted
project space) ...
I've moved the tarball to the fedorahosted release infrastructure, the tarballs
will be here now: https://fedorahosted.org/released/beakerlib/
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 561470] Review Request: beakerlib - shell-level integration testing library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561470
--- Comment #12 from James Laska jla...@redhat.com 2010-02-22 19:11:56 EST ---
Spec URL: http://www.afri.cz/files/beakerlib.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.afri.cz/files/beakerlib-1.0-2.src.rpm
The src.rpm URL does not work, I've instead used
http://afri.fedorapeople.org/beakerlib/beakerlib-1.0-2.fc12.src.rpm
[ FAIL ] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package
beakerlib.src: W: invalid-url Source0: beakerlib-1.0.tar.gz
beakerlib.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: beakerlib-1.0.tar.gz
I believe you mixed the definitions of URL and Source0. The following
patch resolves the problem accordingly.
--- /tmp/jlaska-rpm/SPECS/beakerlib.spec 2010-02-12 11:00:20.0 -0500
+++ beakerlib.spec 2010-02-22 19:07:48.534865389 -0500
@@ -8 +8 @@
-Source0:%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
+Source0:
https://fedorahosted.org/%{name}/attachment/wiki/tarballs/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
@@ -10 +10 @@
-URL:
https://fedorahosted.org/beakerlib/attachment/wiki/tarballs/beakerlib-1.0.tar.gz
+URL:https://fedorahosted.org/%{name}
[ OK ] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines
[ OK ] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name} [...]
[ OK ] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
[ OK ] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license
and meet the Licensing Guidelines
[ FAIL ] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the
actual license
beakerlib.spec noted GPLv2, however the following files included in
beakerlib show 'GPLv2 or later':
git_rules.mk:1:# License: GPL v2 or later
py_rules.mk:1:# License: GPL v2 or later
rpmspec_rules.mk:1:# License: GPL v2 or later
upload_rules.mk:1:# License: GPL v2 or later
scm_rules.mk:1:# License: GPL v2 or later
I think beakerlib.spec should note GPLv2+ or the *.mk files should
be adjusted
[ OK ] MUST: 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 must be included in %doc
[ OK ] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[ WARN ] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
It's common practice to include two newlines prior to each %section in
the spec file. I'd recommend the same here for readability. Please
see the tool rpmdev-newspec (provided by rpmdevtools) or the spec
template included in vim now.
[ FAIL ] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for
this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package,
please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this.
The Source0 line must be a URL to the location of the source upstream.
Something like (note, the URL will depend on the location you post
this, but I'd recommend anchored somewhere from your fedorahosted
project space) ...
Source0:
http://fedorahosted.org/releases/b/e/beakerlib/beakerlib-%{version}.tar.bz2
See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL for more info
[ OK ] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary
rpms on at least one primary architecture
koji scratch build -
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2007048
[ N/A ] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on
an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the
spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST
have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package
does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST
be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line
[ OK ] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except
for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging
Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply
common sense.
[ N/A ] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by
using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly
forbidden
[ N/A ] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared
library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's
default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[ N/A ] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must
state this fact in the request for review, along
[Bug 561470] Review Request: beakerlib - shell-level integration testing library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561470 --- Comment #9 from Petr Muller pmul...@redhat.com 2010-02-09 11:27:06 EST --- Thanks you for all the feedback! I'll fix everything and let know... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 561470] Review Request: beakerlib - shell-level integration testing library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561470 --- Comment #7 from Petr Šplíchal pspli...@redhat.com 2010-02-08 04:44:55 EST --- Can the .spec summary be made more specific? Presently, it says An operating system integration testing harness. Is that the correct summary for beakerlib? What about using the summary from the wiki? Should be quite up-to-date and more specific: Summary: A shell-level integration testing library Description: BeakerLib is a shell-level integration testing library, providing convenience functions which simplify writing, running and analysis of integration and blackbox tests. The essential features are: * Journal - uniform logging mechanism (saved in XML format) * Phases - clear separation of setup / test / cleanup * Asserts - common checks (exit codes, check file existence content) * Common operations - managing services, backup restore * MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. FAIL - * I can't tell by looking at the code what the license is. You may wish to include a LICENSE file. I'll add the LICENSE file as part of the documentation update patch. * The Makefile lists '# License: GPL v2 or later', but the package is listed as GPLv2. if this is the case, you may wish to change the .spec file License: GPLv2+ * src/staf-rhts/BEAKERLIB.pm shows Eclipse Public License (EPL) V1.0 which is not compatible with the GPLv2 (see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#SoftwareLicenses). The staf-rhts directory should be removed altogether I guess. This is Beaker-Staff integration stuff which has not been used AFAIK. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 561470] Review Request: beakerlib - shell-level integration testing library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561470
--- Comment #8 from Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com 2010-02-08 07:55:40
EST ---
BuildArch:noarch
%{_libdir}/%{name}/python/rlMemAvg.py*
Bzzz! Noarch plus %_libdir won't fly, since the value of %_libdir would change
with the build host.
Source0:%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
This is no valid URL where to download the tarball. If the tarball cannot be
downloaded anywhere, please add a comment on how to construct it from a scm
repository.
https://fedorahosted.org/git/beakerlib.git
That redirects to:
https://fedorahosted.org/web/410
No such project.
The requested project does not exist on Fedora Hosted.
Obsoletes: rhtslib beaker-lib
Provides: rhtslib beaker-lib
Have you tried rpmlint -i ... on the rpms?
It's common practise to specify a max. version in Obsoletes tags in order to
not occupy a namespace completely. And to specify an explicit EVR in Provides.
Example:
Obsoletes: rhtslib 1.0
Provides: rhtslib = %{version}-%{release}
If not doing that, this pair of Obsoletes/Provides becomes much more
questionable. Look! On Fedora 12:
$ repoquery --whatprovides rhtslib
$ repoquery --whatprovides beaker-lib
$
Nothing provides these so far. Even if it may be old names: IMO, it's being
frowned upon to provide alternative virtual package names just for fun. My
suggestion: keep the Obsoletes with proper max. version, but don't add the
Provides. It's silly to run with multiple alternative/competing packages names,
whether virtual or not.
%makeinstall DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
Please prefer make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT install over %makeinstall unless
the normal make install ... doesn't work. The macro redefines many values,
which bears a risk.
/usr/lib/beakerlib/python/journal-compare.py*
Which packages owns /usr/lib/beakerlib/python/?
/usr/lib/beakerlib/perl/deja-summarize
Which packages owns /usr/lib/beakerlib/perl/?
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories
%{_mandir}/man1/beakerlib*1.gz
Since man pages typically are compressed transparently by rpmbuild, prefer a
wildcard over a file extension such as .gz:
%{_mandir}/man1/beakerlib*1*
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 561470] Review Request: beakerlib - shell-level integration testing library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561470 --- Comment #2 from James Laska jla...@redhat.com 2010-02-05 13:29:21 EST --- I can do the review, but I'm not able to sponsor you. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 561470] Review Request: beakerlib - shell-level integration testing library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561470 James Laska jla...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jla...@redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 561470] Review Request: beakerlib - shell-level integration testing library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561470 --- Comment #5 from James Laska jla...@redhat.com 2010-02-05 14:35:40 EST --- (In reply to comment #4) Jason, thanks ... it wasn't obvious to me from https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process that a sponsor could only do the review. I see now The Reviewer can be any Fedora account holder, who is a member of the packager group. There is one exception: If it is the first package of a Contributor, the Reviewer must be a Sponsor.. Hopefully my review feedback is helpful. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 561470] Review Request: beakerlib - shell-level integration testing library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561470 --- Comment #6 from James Laska jla...@redhat.com 2010-02-05 14:37:47 EST --- Created an attachment (id=389172) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=389172) spec file patch -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 561470] Review Request: beakerlib - shell-level integration testing library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561470 Petr Muller pmul...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jla...@redhat.com, ||pspli...@redhat.com Blocks||177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 561470] Review Request: beakerlib - shell-level integration testing library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561470 --- Comment #1 from Petr Muller pmul...@redhat.com 2010-02-03 13:04:44 EST --- More info: https://fedorahosted.org/beakerlib/ (we are also upstream) rpmlint: $ rpmlint /home/afri/qa/beakerlib/rpm-build/noarch/beakerlib-1.0-1.noarch.rpm beakerlib.noarch: W: self-obsoletion beaker-lib obsoletes beaker-lib beakerlib.noarch: W: self-obsoletion rhtslib obsoletes rhtslib These are the old names for the same stuff. Both names are in both Provides and Obsoletes field, which I believed was the right way. beakerlib.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib We believe that because all of the scripts are meant to be just sourced and used as a library, /usr/lib is the right place for them. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
