[Bug 782178] Review Request: sha2 - SHA Implementation Library
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=782178 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||sha2-1.0.1-1.fc15 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2012-02-16 19:51:58 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-16 19:51:58 EST --- sha2-1.0.1-1.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 782178] Review Request: sha2 - SHA Implementation Library
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=782178 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|sha2-1.0.1-1.fc15 |sha2-1.0.1-1.fc16 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-16 19:52:52 EST --- sha2-1.0.1-1.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 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 782178] Review Request: sha2 - SHA Implementation Library
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=782178 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-02 08:33:15 EST --- sha2-1.0.1-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sha2-1.0.1-1.fc16 -- 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 782178] Review Request: sha2 - SHA Implementation Library
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=782178 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-02 08:32:41 EST --- sha2-1.0.1-1.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sha2-1.0.1-1.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 782178] Review Request: sha2 - SHA Implementation Library
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=782178 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 782178] Review Request: sha2 - SHA Implementation Library
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=782178 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-02 12:21:52 EST --- sha2-1.0.1-1.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 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 782178] Review Request: sha2 - SHA Implementation Library
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=782178 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-02-01 08:24:25 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 782178] Review Request: sha2 - SHA Implementation Library
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=782178 Orcan Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Orcan Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2012-01-31 20:22:30 EST --- Thanks a lot for the review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: sha2 Short Description: SHA Implementation Library Owners: oget Branches: F-15 F-16 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 782178] Review Request: sha2 - SHA Implementation Library
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=782178 --- Comment #2 from Orcan Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2012-01-30 19:47:49 EST --- Hi Thibault, just wanted to ask how the review is coming... -- 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 782178] Review Request: sha2 - SHA Implementation Library
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=782178
Thibault North thibault.no...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Thibault North thibault.no...@gmail.com 2012-01-30
20:48:43 EST ---
Yup, here we go:
MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.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. 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.
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. OK
MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. OK
MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. 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. 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. N/A
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. 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. OK
MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. OK
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. N/A
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. 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) OK
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example. OK
MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. OK
MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. 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). N/A
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. OK
MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. OK
MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A
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. OK
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} =
%{version}-%{release} OK
MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed
in the spec if they are built. OK
MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file,
and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need
a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation.
N/A
MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[Bug 782178] Review Request: sha2 - SHA Implementation Library
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=782178 Thibault North thibault.no...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Thibault North thibault.no...@gmail.com 2012-01-24 16:56:28 EST --- rpmlint output: sha2.src: I: checking sha2.src: I: checking-url http://www.aarongifford.com/computers/sha.html (timeout 10 seconds) sha2.src: I: checking-url http://www.aarongifford.com/computers/sha2-1.0.1.tgz (timeout 10 seconds) sha2.x86_64: I: checking sha2.x86_64: I: checking-url http://www.aarongifford.com/computers/sha.html (timeout 10 seconds) sha2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sha2 sha2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sha2speed sha2-devel.x86_64: I: checking sha2-devel.x86_64: I: checking-url http://www.aarongifford.com/computers/sha.html (timeout 10 seconds) sha2-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation sha2-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking sha2-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking-url http://www.aarongifford.com/computers/sha.html (timeout 10 seconds) /home/tnorth/rpmbuild/SPECS/sha2.spec: I: checking-url http://www.aarongifford.com/computers/sha2-1.0.1.tgz (timeout 10 seconds) 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 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 782178] Review Request: sha2 - SHA Implementation Library
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=782178 Thibault North thibault.no...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||thibault.no...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|thibault.no...@gmail.com -- 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 782178] Review Request: sha2 - SHA Implementation Library
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=782178 Orcan Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||772175 -- 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
