[Bug 722930] Review Request: ddpt - dd utility variant for SCSI/storage devices
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=722930 Dan Horák d...@danny.cz changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Dan Horák d...@danny.cz 2011-08-01 05:11:05 EDT --- Mario, thanks for the review. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: ddpt Short Description: Variant of the dd utility for SCSI/storage devices Owners: sharkcz Branches: f14 f15 f16 el5 el6 -- 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 722930] Review Request: ddpt - dd utility variant for SCSI/storage devices
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=722930 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2011-08-01 05:59:37 EDT --- 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 722930] Review Request: ddpt - dd utility variant for SCSI/storage devices
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=722930 Dan Horák d...@danny.cz changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2011-08-01 07:00:23 --- Comment #6 from Dan Horák d...@danny.cz 2011-08-01 07:00:23 EDT --- 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 722930] Review Request: ddpt - dd utility variant for SCSI/storage devices
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=722930 Mario Blättermann mari...@freenet.de changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mari...@freenet.de AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mari...@freenet.de Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Mario Blättermann mari...@freenet.de 2011-07-31 15:35:02 EDT --- Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3241983 $ rpmlint -i -v * ddpt.i686: I: checking ddpt.i686: W: summary-not-capitalized C dd utility variant for SCSI/storage devices Summary doesn't begin with a capital letter. ddpt.i686: I: checking-url http://sg.danny.cz/sg/ddpt.html (timeout 10 seconds) ddpt.src: I: checking ddpt.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C dd utility variant for SCSI/storage devices Summary doesn't begin with a capital letter. ddpt.src: I: checking-url http://sg.danny.cz/sg/ddpt.html (timeout 10 seconds) ddpt.src: I: checking-url http://sg.danny.cz/sg/p/ddpt-0.92.tar.bz2 (timeout 10 seconds) ddpt.x86_64: I: checking ddpt.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C dd utility variant for SCSI/storage devices Summary doesn't begin with a capital letter. ddpt.x86_64: I: checking-url http://sg.danny.cz/sg/ddpt.html (timeout 10 seconds) ddpt-debuginfo.i686: I: checking ddpt-debuginfo.i686: I: checking-url http://sg.danny.cz/sg/ddpt.html (timeout 10 seconds) ddpt-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking ddpt-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking-url http://sg.danny.cz/sg/ddpt.html (timeout 10 seconds) ddpt.spec: I: checking-url http://sg.danny.cz/sg/p/ddpt-0.92.tar.bz2 (timeout 10 seconds) 5 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Just a single issue: the Summary line doesn't begin with a capital letter. I would recommend Variant of the dd utility for SCSI/storage devices to make rpmlint happy again. Full review follows. -- 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 722930] Review Request: ddpt - dd utility variant for SCSI/storage devices
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=722930 --- Comment #3 from Mario Blättermann mari...@freenet.de 2011-07-31 15:45:48 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) [.] SHOULD: Your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. Currently no man page available. Forget about it. Of course we have a man page here. -- 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 722930] Review Request: ddpt - dd utility variant for SCSI/storage devices
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=722930
Mario Blättermann mari...@freenet.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Mario Blättermann mari...@freenet.de 2011-07-31 15:44:03
EDT ---
-
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
-
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license.
BSD
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+] MUST: The file containing the text of the license(s) for the package must
be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source.
$ md5sum *
4224a31bd3e6903d3371ebe7fdd46938 ddpt-0.92.tar.bz2
4224a31bd3e6903d3371ebe7fdd46938 ddpt-0.92.tar.bz2.packaged
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
- See Koji build above.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, ...
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
[.] MUST: If a package installs files below %{_datadir}/icons, the icon cache
must be updated.
[.] MUST: Packages storing shared library files (not just symlinks) must call
ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ...
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] MUST: Packages must not provide RPM dependency information when that
information is not global in nature, or are otherwise handled.
[.] MUST: When filtering automatically generated RPM dependency information,
the filtering system implemented by Fedora must be used.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: Files in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application.
[.] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[.] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), ...
[.] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
[.] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file
[.] MUST: .desktop files must be properly installed with desktop-file-install
in the %install section.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[.] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream...
[+] SHOULD: Timestamps of files should be preserved.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
See Koji build above (which uses mock anyway)
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
I assume the packager has tested it. He's the upstream developer anyway...
[.] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
[.] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.
[.] SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg.
[.] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
/usr/bin, or /usr/sbin ...
[.] SHOULD: Your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts.
Currently no man page available.
PACKAGE APPROVED
Please change the summary please before the package goes into VCS.
--
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
