[Bug 618268] Review Request: geronimo-osgi-support - OSGI spec bundle support
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=618268 Chris Spike changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #8 from Chris Spike 2010-07-31 18:21:29 EDT --- Package built, closing. Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=187497 -- 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 618268] Review Request: geronimo-osgi-support - OSGI spec bundle support
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=618268 --- Comment #7 from Kevin Fenzi 2010-07-30 16:36:24 EDT --- GIT done (by process-cvs-requests.py). -- 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 618268] Review Request: geronimo-osgi-support - OSGI spec bundle support
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=618268 Chris Spike changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Chris Spike 2010-07-29 07:26:19 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: geronimo-osgi-support Short Description: OSGI spec bundle support Owners: spike Branches: 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 618268] Review Request: geronimo-osgi-support - OSGI spec bundle support
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=618268 Stanislav Ochotnicky changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Stanislav Ochotnicky 2010-07-29 06:31:22 EDT --- Everything looks in order now. Package is APPROVED. -- 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 618268] Review Request: geronimo-osgi-support - OSGI spec bundle support
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=618268 --- Comment #4 from Chris Spike 2010-07-29 05:57:33 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) > NEEDSWORK: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted > spelling is not a problem, but those LICENSE EOLs and encoding are. Done. Should be ok now: geronimo-osgi-support.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lookup -> lockup, hookup, look up geronimo-osgi-support.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lookup -> lockup, hookup, look up geronimo-osgi-support.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/maven/fragments/geronimo-osgi-support 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. > NEEDSWORK: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual > license. > > License file actually contains 2 licenses: ASL and W3C, please state > them both Done > Other: > * please comment on patches used. For example itests were removed > because of more depdencies that would need to be packaged. It makes > maintenance a bit easier in the future Done New spec file and SRPM: http://spike.fedorapeople.org/geronimo-osgi-support/geronimo-osgi-support.spec http://spike.fedorapeople.org/geronimo-osgi-support/geronimo-osgi-support-1.0-2.fc14.src.rpm -- 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 618268] Review Request: geronimo-osgi-support - OSGI spec bundle support
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=618268
--- Comment #3 from Stanislav Ochotnicky 2010-07-29
05:05:00 EDT ---
NEEDSWORK: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
geronimo-osgi-support.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lookup ->
lockup, hookup, look up
geronimo-osgi-support.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc
/etc/maven/fragments/geronimo-osgi-support
geronimo-osgi-support.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/geronimo-osgi-support-1.0/LICENSE
geronimo-osgi-support.noarch: W: file-not-utf8
/usr/share/doc/geronimo-osgi-support-1.0/LICENSE
geronimo-osgi-support.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lookup ->
lockup, hookup, look up
geronimo-osgi-support-javadoc.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/geronimo-osgi-support-javadoc-1.0/LICENSE
geronimo-osgi-support-javadoc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8
/usr/share/doc/geronimo-osgi-support-javadoc-1.0/LICENSE
spelling is not a problem, but those LICENSE EOLs and encoding are.
OK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
OK: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. .
OK: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
OK: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines .
NEEDSWORK: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
License file actually contains 2 licenses: ASL and W3C, please state
them both
OK: 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: All independent sub-packages have License of their own (if it exists)
OK: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
OK: 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.
OK: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
OK: 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.
OK: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
OK: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a
directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that
directory.
OK: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings.
OK: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
OK: Each package must consistently use macros.
OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
OK: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of
large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to
size. Large can refer to either size or quantity).
OK: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly
if it is not present.
OK: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the
files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for
example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the
files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that
you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns,
then please present that at package review time.
OK: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
Other:
* please comment on patches used. For example itests were removed
because of more depdencies that would need to be packaged. It makes
maintenance a bit easier in the future
--
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 618268] Review Request: geronimo-osgi-support - OSGI spec bundle support
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=618268 Stanislav Ochotnicky changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||socho...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|socho...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Stanislav Ochotnicky 2010-07-28 04:56:20 EDT --- I'll do the review -- 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 618268] Review Request: geronimo-osgi-support - OSGI spec bundle support
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=618268 acarter changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jgr...@redhat.com --- Comment #1 from acarter 2010-07-26 11:05:07 EDT --- *** Bug 617721 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- 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 618268] Review Request: geronimo-osgi-support - OSGI spec bundle support
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=618268 Chris Spike changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||617943 -- 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 618268] Review Request: geronimo-osgi-support - OSGI spec bundle support
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=618268 Chris Spike changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||617942 -- 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 618268] Review Request: geronimo-osgi-support - OSGI spec bundle support
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=618268 Chris Spike changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||616250 -- 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
