[Bug 770615] Review Request: baobab - A graphical directory tree analyzer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=770615 Adel Gadllah adel.gadl...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2013-08-18 03:47:48 --- Comment #14 from Adel Gadllah adel.gadl...@gmail.com --- No reason to keep this open. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=8RTSChURxKa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 770615] Review Request: baobab - A graphical directory tree analyzer
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=770615 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-03-16 10:03:48 EDT --- baobab-3.3.3-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/baobab-3.3.3-2.fc17 -- 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 770615] Review Request: baobab - A graphical directory tree analyzer
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=770615 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-03-15 22:40:07 EDT --- baobab-3.3.3-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 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 770615] Review Request: baobab - A graphical directory tree analyzer
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=770615 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- 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 770615] Review Request: baobab - A graphical directory tree analyzer
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=770615 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-03-14 05:48:06 EDT --- baobab-3.3.3-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/baobab-3.3.3-1.fc17 -- 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 770615] Review Request: baobab - A graphical directory tree analyzer
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=770615 Rui Matos tiagoma...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #9 from Rui Matos tiagoma...@gmail.com 2012-03-12 09:10:51 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: baobab New Branches: f17 Owners: rtcm -- 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 770615] Review Request: baobab - A graphical directory tree analyzer
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=770615 --- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-03-12 09:12:32 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 770615] Review Request: baobab - A graphical directory tree analyzer
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=770615 Rui Matos tiagoma...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Rui Matos tiagoma...@gmail.com 2012-03-07 11:42:41 EST --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: baobab Short Description: A graphical directory tree analyzer Owners: rtcm 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 770615] Review Request: baobab - A graphical directory tree analyzer
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=770615 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-03-07 11:53:41 EST --- Reviewer, please take ownership of review BZs. Unretired devel, please take ownership in pkgdb, thanks all! -- 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 770615] Review Request: baobab - A graphical directory tree analyzer
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=770615 Rui Matos tiagoma...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tiagoma...@gmail.com --- Comment #3 from Rui Matos tiagoma...@gmail.com 2012-03-05 10:21:12 EST --- I've updated this (hopefully) according to Adel's comment: spec: http://glua.ua.pt/~rmatos/baobab.spec srpm: http://glua.ua.pt/~rmatos/baobab-3.3.2-1.fc16.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 770615] Review Request: baobab - A graphical directory tree analyzer
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=770615 --- Comment #4 from Rui Matos tiagoma...@gmail.com 2012-03-05 11:00:06 EST --- After reading the packaging guidelines about Obsoletes/Provides I decided that it's better to only obsolete gnome-utils since this package doesn't provide any libs or devel stuff. Also I removed the Provides line since it seems to me that we can't claim that having baobab installed is the same as having gnome-utils. By this reasoning none of the new separated utilities should get the Provides line so I'm on the fence on this one. spec: http://glua.ua.pt/~rmatos/baobab.spec srpm: http://glua.ua.pt/~rmatos/baobab-3.3.2-1.fc16.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 770615] Review Request: baobab - A graphical directory tree analyzer
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=770615 Adel Gadllah adel.gadl...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Adel Gadllah adel.gadl...@gmail.com 2012-03-05 11:05:10 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 770615] Review Request: baobab - A graphical directory tree analyzer
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=770615 --- Comment #5 from Adel Gadllah adel.gadl...@gmail.com 2012-03-05 11:04:25 EST --- (In reply to comment #4) After reading the packaging guidelines about Obsoletes/Provides I decided that it's better to only obsolete gnome-utils since this package doesn't provide any libs or devel stuff. Also I removed the Provides line since it seems to me that we can't claim that having baobab installed is the same as having gnome-utils. By this reasoning none of the new separated utilities should get the Provides line so I'm on the fence on this one. spec: http://glua.ua.pt/~rmatos/baobab.spec srpm: http://glua.ua.pt/~rmatos/baobab-3.3.2-1.fc16.src.rpm Yeah an obsolete should be enough to handle upgrades too now days, so that's fine. -- 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 770615] Review Request: baobab - A graphical directory tree analyzer
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=770615 Michal Schmidt mschm...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pbonz...@redhat.com --- Comment #2 from Michal Schmidt mschm...@redhat.com 2012-03-04 13:41:27 EST --- *** Bug 693705 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 770615] Review Request: baobab - A graphical directory tree analyzer
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=770615
Adel Gadllah adel.gadl...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||adel.gadl...@gmail.com
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Adel Gadllah adel.gadl...@gmail.com 2012-01-31 11:21:52
EST ---
Review:
[1] rpmlint must be run on every package.
baobab.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US analyse - analyses,
analyst, analyze
baobab.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filesystem - file system,
file-system, systemically
baobab.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US analyse - analyses,
analyst, analyze
baobab.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filesystem - file
system, file-system, systemically
baobab.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided gnome-utils
baobab.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided gnome-utils-libs
baobab.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided gnome-utils-devel
baobab-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/baobab-3.3.1/src/baobab-remote-connect-dialog.c
baobab-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/baobab-3.3.1/src/baobab-remote-connect-dialog.h
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 7 warnings.
[+] The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}
[+] The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines. (GPLv2+ and GFDL)
[+] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
[2] 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.
[+] The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
sha265: df516886452984c609ecd149ea43cbbd77f100c4c5424762835600a2269075d7
[+] The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one supported architecture.
[+] All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
[+] The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro.
[+] 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.
[+] A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
[+] Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines.
[+] The package must contain code, or permissible content. This is described in
detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines.
[+] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed
in the spec.
[+] Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file,
and that file must be properly installed / validated with desktop-file-install
/ desktop-file-validate in the %install section.
[+] Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
[+] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[+] The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[+] The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[+] If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
1: Mostly just noise, should provide gnome-utils though for upgrades.
2: Should package COPYING (and probably NEWS and README)
Otherwise looks fine.
--
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 770615] Review Request: baobab - A graphical directory tree analyzer
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=770615 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|baobab - A graphical |Review Request: baobab - A |directory tree analyzer |graphical directory tree ||analyzer -- 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
