[Bug 716384] Review Request: filo - Useful FILe and stream Operations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=716384 Otto Urpelainen changed: What|Removed |Added CC||otu...@iki.fi Flags||needinfo?(bl...@verdurin.co ||m) --- Comment #9 from Otto Urpelainen --- Do you still intend to complete this package? If so, I can review. You should update the specfile and srpm first, as they are so old and (while either unmaintained or complete now) upstream has changed license and added some stuff since. If you are not interested any more, please either close this issue, or do nothing, in which case automation should close the issue in one month. -- 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 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 716384] Review Request: filo - Useful FILe and stream Operations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=716384 Ben Boeckel changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Assignee|fed...@me.benboeckel.net|nob...@fedoraproject.org Flags|needinfo?(fedora@me.benboec | |kel.net)| --- Comment #8 from Ben Boeckel --- No progress here. Unassigning myself. -- 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 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
needinfo canceled: [Bug 716384] Review Request: filo - Useful FILe and stream Operations
Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Ben Boeckel has canceled Package Review 's request for Ben Boeckel 's needinfo: Bug 716384: Review Request: filo - Useful FILe and stream Operations https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=716384 --- Comment #8 from Ben Boeckel --- No progress here. Unassigning myself. ___ 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 716384] Review Request: filo - Useful FILe and stream Operations
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=716384 --- Comment #5 from Adam Huffman 2012-01-11 18:33:27 EST --- I've had time to work on this again and have made progress on a gzstream package but it's not ready for review yet. -- 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 716384] Review Request: filo - Useful FILe and stream Operations
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=716384 --- Comment #4 from Adam Huffman 2011-07-26 02:55:04 EDT --- Upstream doesn't want to unbundle gzstream, so I'l have to deal with that myself. I've made a start on a gzstream package. Will update this one later in the week. -- 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 716384] Review Request: filo - Useful FILe and stream Operations
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=716384 --- Comment #3 from Ben Boeckel 2011-07-25 22:14:15 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 716384] Review Request: filo - Useful FILe and stream Operations
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=716384 --- Comment #2 from Adam Huffman 2011-06-30 17:56:27 EDT --- Just a quick comment - the line "Licenced under the GNU General Public License 2.0 license." in some of the source files is why I put the license as GPLv2. There should really be a file to confirm this, though, I agree. I'll contact upstream. Re. the BuildRoot and %clean parts - I intend to support this in EPEL5, for which I believe those are still required. I'll look into the other issues, including the bundled library. -- 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 716384] Review Request: filo - Useful FILe and stream Operations
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=716384
Ben Boeckel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||maths...@gmail.com
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|maths...@gmail.com
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Ben Boeckel 2011-06-29 20:35:51 EDT ---
I'll take this. Looks like some interesting tools (though shuffle is "sort -R")
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [1]
[x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x] Spec uses macros instead of hard-coded directory names.
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[x] Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x] PreReq is not used.
[-] Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [2]
[-] Package use %makeinstall only when ``make install DESTDIR=...'' doesn't
work.
[-] The spec file handles locales properly.
[-] Changelog in prescribed format.
[x] Rpmlint output is silent.
filo.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary stats
filo.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary shuffle
filo.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary groupBy
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Manpages would be nice to have.
[!] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
I see no indication of the license in the package. Contact upstream to ship a
LICENSE or COPYING file.
[-] 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 %doc.
[-] License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[3,4]
No licensing specified.
[!] Sources contain only permissible code or content.
No license.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
MD5SUM this package : d8b495af3a5b68f8796374a2ce15c44d
arq5x-filo-f56efe3.tar.gz
MD5SUM upstream package : d8b495af3a5b68f8796374a2ce15c44d
arq5x-filo-f56efe3.tar.gz.orig
[x] Compiler flags are appropriate.
[x] %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
Flags seem to be set correctly, but not all compile commands are in the logs.
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[-] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[-] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
chmod -x would probably be better for the source files (getting upstream to
remove the perms would also be nice).
[x] Each %files section contains %defattr.
[x] No %config files under /usr.
[-] %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop using
desktop-file-install file if it is a GUI application. [5]
[-] Package contains a valid .desktop file.
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[x] File names are valid UTF-8.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[!] Package contains no bundled libraries.
Seems to ship with a bundled gzstream
http://www.cs.unc.edu/Research/compgeom/gzstream/
[-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present.
[x] Package contains no static executables.
[-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[x] Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x] Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x] Package does not generate any conflict.
[x] Package does not contains kernel modules.
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
[x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x] Package installs prope
