[Bug 680423] Review Request: drupal6-authfas - Drupal 6 module for authentication via a Fedora Account System
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=680423 --- Comment #1 from Paul W. Frields 2011-02-25 09:10:22 EST --- $ rpmlint rpmbuild/SPECS/drupal6-authfas.spec rpmbuild/SRPMS/drupal6-authfas-0.2.1-1.fc14.src.rpm rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/drupal6-authfas-0.2.1-1.fc14.noarch.rpm drupal6-authfas.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Drupal -> Drupelet, Drupe, Druidical drupal6-authfas.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Drupal -> Drupelet, Drupe, Druidical 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. -- 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 680423] Review Request: drupal6-authfas - Drupal 6 module for authentication via a Fedora Account System
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=680423 Paul W. Frields changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||662103(InsightReviews) -- 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 680423] Review Request: drupal6-authfas - Drupal 6 module for authentication via a Fedora Account System
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=680423 Eric Christensen changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||e...@christensenplace.us AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|e...@christensenplace.us Flag||fedora-review?, ||needinfo?(pfrields@redhat.c ||om) --- Comment #2 from Eric Christensen 2011-03-07 20:15:37 EST --- The source appears to be broken... rpmbuild -ba SPECS/drupal6-authfas.spec error: File /home/christensene/rpmbuild/SOURCES/authfas-0.2.1.tar.bz2: No such file or directory -- 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 680423] Review Request: drupal6-authfas - Drupal 6 module for authentication via a Fedora Account System
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=680423 --- Comment #3 from Eric Christensen 2011-03-07 20:19:20 EST --- Sorry... had a DOH! moment... disregard comment 2. -- 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 680423] Review Request: drupal6-authfas - Drupal 6 module for authentication via a Fedora Account System
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=680423
Eric Christensen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
Flag|fedora-review?, |fedora-review+
|needinfo?(pfrields@redhat.c |
|om) |
--- Comment #4 from Eric Christensen 2011-03-07
20:31:14 EST ---
OK MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.[1]
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}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] .
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 .
OK MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license. [3]
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.[4]
OK MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5]
OK MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]
OK 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.
OK MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture. [7]
OK 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. [8]
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.
OK MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9]
OK 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. [10]
OK MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11]
NA MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker. [12]
OK MUST: 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. [13]
OK MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific
situations)[14]
OK MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line. [15]
OK MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [16]
OK MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17]
OK MUST: 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). [18]
OK MUST: 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. [18]
NA MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [19]
NA MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [20]
NA MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in
a -devel package. [19]
NA MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} =
%{version}-%{release} [21]
NA MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.[20]
NA MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properl
[Bug 680423] Review Request: drupal6-authfas - Drupal 6 module for authentication via a Fedora Account System
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=680423 --- Comment #5 from Eric Christensen 2011-03-08 07:24:26 EST --- 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 680423] Review Request: drupal6-authfas - Drupal 6 module for authentication via a Fedora Account System
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=680423 Bill Nottingham changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Bill Nottingham 2011-03-08 10:39:45 EST --- Setting flag on behalf of Paul. -- 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 680423] Review Request: drupal6-authfas - Drupal 6 module for authentication via a Fedora Account System
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=680423 --- Comment #7 from Paul W. Frields 2011-03-08 10:41:55 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: drupal6-authfas Short Description: Drupal 6 module for authentication via a Fedora Account System Owners: pfrields Branches: el5 el6 f15 InitialCC: asrob -- 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 680423] Review Request: drupal6-authfas - Drupal 6 module for authentication via a Fedora Account System
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=680423 --- Comment #8 from Jason Tibbitts 2011-03-08 15:54:05 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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 680423] Review Request: drupal6-authfas - Drupal 6 module for authentication via a Fedora Account System
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=680423 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System 2011-03-09 10:29:47 EST --- drupal6-authfas-0.2.1-1.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drupal6-authfas-0.2.1-1.fc15 -- 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 680423] Review Request: drupal6-authfas - Drupal 6 module for authentication via a Fedora Account System
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=680423 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System 2011-03-09 20:47:43 EST --- drupal6-authfas-0.2.1-1.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 testing repository. -- 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 680423] Review Request: drupal6-authfas - Drupal 6 module for authentication via a Fedora Account System
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=680423 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System 2011-03-16 00:08:46 EDT --- drupal6-authfas-0.2.1-1.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository. -- 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 680423] Review Request: drupal6-authfas - Drupal 6 module for authentication via a Fedora Account System
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=680423 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||drupal6-authfas-0.2.1-1.fc1 ||5 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2011-03-16 00:08:50 -- 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
