[Bug 705773] Review Request: erlang-meck - A mocking library for Erlang
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=705773 Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-02-17 09:24:11 --- Comment #9 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2012-02-17 09:24:11 EST --- Thank you. Imported and built. -- 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 705773] Review Request: erlang-meck - A mocking library for Erlang
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=705773 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2012-02-16 05:57:09 EST --- Ok, good. This 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 705773] Review Request: erlang-meck - A mocking library for Erlang
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=705773 Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2012-02-16 12:06:17 EST --- Thank you. Peter, I see that you maintain a lot of erlang stuff, I hope you won't mind being added as comaintainer. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: erlang-meck Short Description: A mocking library for Erlang Owners: lkundrak peter Branches: f15 f16 el6 f17 -- 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 705773] Review Request: erlang-meck - A mocking library for Erlang
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=705773 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-02-16 12:18:43 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 705773] Review Request: erlang-meck - A mocking library for Erlang
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=705773 --- Comment #5 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2012-02-13 12:29:23 EST --- Sorry for the delay. SRPM: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/erlang-meck-0.7.1-1.el6.src.rpm SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/erlang-meck.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 705773] Review Request: erlang-meck - A mocking library for Erlang
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=705773 --- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2011-09-22 05:05:11 EDT --- Ping again. -- 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 705773] Review Request: erlang-meck - A mocking library for Erlang
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=705773 --- Comment #3 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2011-09-02 11:11:49 EDT --- Ping. -- 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 705773] Review Request: erlang-meck - A mocking library for Erlang
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=705773
--- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2011-05-26 05:46:55 EDT
---
REVIEW:
Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable
+ rpmlint is not silent but these messages should be omitted in case of Erlang
package (we're installing noarch package into arch-dependent directory - that's
intentional)
sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpmlint ../RPMS/ppc/erlang-meck-0.5-1.fc15.ppc.rpm
erlang-meck.ppc: E: no-binary
erlang-meck.ppc: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.
sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS:
+ The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (Apacke
Software License 2.0).
+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included
in %doc.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
- The sources used to build the package, must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL but I failed to download them using the URL from spec.
+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
0 No shared library files.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
+ The package is not designed to be relocatable.
+/- The package owns all directories that it creates but you'd better to drop
empty include directory from package.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
0 No header files.
0 No static libraries.
0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
0 The package doesn't contain library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1).
0 No devel sub-package.
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
0 Not a GUI application.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.
Bottom line for all that:
* please, correct URL for Source0
* remove empty and useless include directory in the %files section (looks
like a leftover)
* consider updating to the released recently 0.6.
--
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 705773] Review Request: erlang-meck - A mocking library for Erlang
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=705773 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||lemen...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lemen...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2011-05-19 07:05:54 EDT --- I'll review it -- 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
