[Bug 785462] Review Request: sinfo - Show an overview of the available computers an their current load
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785462 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||sinfo-0.0.47-3.fc17 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2013-07-06 21:27:24 --- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- sinfo-0.0.47-3.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- 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=0GIbbrlaTRa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785462] Review Request: sinfo - Show an overview of the available computers an their current load
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785462 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|sinfo-0.0.47-3.fc17 |sinfo-0.0.47-3.fc18 --- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- sinfo-0.0.47-3.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository. -- 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=CclTUJ2zAua=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785462] Review Request: sinfo - Show an overview of the available computers an their current load
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785462 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|sinfo-0.0.47-3.fc18 |sinfo-0.0.47-3.fc19 --- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- sinfo-0.0.47-3.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. -- 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=O5rYJ0iFKya=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785462] Review Request: sinfo - Show an overview of the available computers an their current load
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785462 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- sinfo-0.0.47-3.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository. -- 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=iJG5sQV7RYa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785462] Review Request: sinfo - Show an overview of the available computers an their current load
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785462 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- sinfo-0.0.47-3.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sinfo-0.0.47-3.fc19 -- 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=ypcsV5W2vFa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785462] Review Request: sinfo - Show an overview of the available computers an their current load
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785462 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- 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=E8sVxMjvfVa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785462] Review Request: sinfo - Show an overview of the available computers an their current load
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785462 --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- sinfo-0.0.47-3.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sinfo-0.0.47-3.fc18 -- 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=oMF6UAPxhXa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785462] Review Request: sinfo - Show an overview of the available computers an their current load
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785462 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- sinfo-0.0.47-3.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sinfo-0.0.47-3.fc17 -- 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=3XUD4U26Aua=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785462] Review Request: sinfo - Show an overview of the available computers an their current load
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785462 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? | Flags||fedora-cvs+ -- 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=n8ZtHDoVhea=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785462] Review Request: sinfo - Show an overview of the available computers an their current load
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785462 --- Comment #19 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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=IuvMBkLZNBa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785462] Review Request: sinfo - Show an overview of the available computers an their current load
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785462 --- Comment #18 from Sophie Kovalevsky kiarakovalev...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: sinfo Short Description: Show an overview of the available computers an their current load Owners: sophiekovalevsky echevemaster Branches: f17 f18 f19 InitialCC: -- 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=4RGV253tJCa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785462] Review Request: sinfo - Show an overview of the available computers an their current load
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785462 Sophie Kovalevsky kiarakovalev...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? -- 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=bKhTYtZeAua=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785462] Review Request: sinfo - Show an overview of the available computers an their current load
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785462 --- Comment #15 from sophiekovalev...@fedoraproject.org --- I uploaded the modifications: It's available on: Spec URL: http://sophiekovalevsky.fedorapeople.org/RPM/sinfo.spec SRPM URL: http://sophiekovalevsky.fedorapeople.org/RPM/sinfo-0.0.47-3.fc17.src.rpm -- 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=DB9YCyDxADa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785462] Review Request: sinfo - Show an overview of the available computers an their current load
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785462 --- Comment #16 from sophiekovalev...@fedoraproject.org --- I'm still interested Volker. I found an sponsor. (In reply to Volker Fröhlich from comment #14) No response for half a year -- Sophie, are you still interested? You need to find a sponsor too. -- 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=RjGewgnQMqa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785462] Review Request: sinfo - Show an overview of the available computers an their current load
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785462 Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|guillermo.go...@gmail.com |echevemas...@gmail.com -- 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=B7Q0Wqpe3Za=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785462] Review Request: sinfo - Show an overview of the available computers an their current load
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785462 Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | -- 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=T2fUdSCAFKa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785462] Review Request: sinfo - Show an overview of the available computers an their current load
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785462 Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? -- 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=c9RE46hBCPa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785462] Review Request: sinfo - Show an overview of the available computers an their current load
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785462
Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #17 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com ---
Package Review
==
- before importing fix the file-not-utf8
- the so-files aren't in ldpath, rpmlint false positive
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Unknown or generated. 121 files have unknown license. Detailed output
of licensecheck in /home/makerpm/sinfo6/785462-sinfo/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 51200 bytes in 4 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: 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.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright
[Bug 785462] Review Request: sinfo - Show an overview of the available computers an their current load
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785462 Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | -- 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=TH1mWGSyyPa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785462] Review Request: sinfo - Show an overview of the available computers an their current load
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785462 --- Comment #14 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at --- No response for half a year -- Sophie, are you still interested? You need to find a sponsor too. -- 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=4kBPGQig9na=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 785462] Review Request: sinfo - Show an overview of the available computers an their current load
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785462 --- Comment #13 from Guillermo Gómez guillermo.go...@gmail.com --- Package still has libtool archives (.la). Issues: === [!]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) Note: sinfo-0.0.47-2.fc18.x86_64.rpm : sinfo-0.0.47-2.fc18.x86_64.rpm sinfo-0.0.47-2.fc18.x86_64.rpm : sinfo-debuginfo-0.0.47-2.fc18.x86_64.rpm sinfo-debuginfo-0.0.47-2.fc18.x86_64.rpm : sinfo-0.0.47-2.fc18.x86_64.rpm sinfo-debuginfo-0.0.47-2.fc18.x86_64.rpm : sinfo- debuginfo-0.0.47-2.fc18.x86_64.rpm -- 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 785462] Review Request: sinfo - Show an overview of the available computers an their current load
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785462 --- Comment #12 from Guillermo Gómez guillermo.go...@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #11) Kiara, did you try to find a sponsor yet? The following document lists a number of options: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group ill take care of it as review is finished. -- 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 785462] Review Request: sinfo - Show an overview of the available computers an their current load
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785462 --- Comment #11 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at --- Kiara, did you try to find a sponsor yet? The following document lists a number of options: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group -- 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 785462] Review Request: sinfo - Show an overview of the available computers an their current load
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785462 --- Comment #10 from sophiekovalev...@fedoraproject.org --- There are the new spec and rpm. Spec URL: http://sophiekovalevsky.fedorapeople.org/sinfo.spec SRPM URL: http://sophiekovalevsky.fedorapeople.org/sinfo-0.0.47-2.fc17.src.rpm -- 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 785462] Review Request: sinfo - Show an overview of the available computers an their current load
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785462 --- Comment #8 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at --- Guillermo Gómez, please explain why you think they are necessary. [makerpm@desktop SPECS]$ rpm -qp --requires /home/makerpm/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/sinfo-0.0.47-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm /bin/sh boost libboost_signals-mt.so.1.47.0()(64bit) libboost_system-mt.so.1.47.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.14)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.2)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.7)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.8)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.9)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libmessage.so.0()(64bit) libmessageio.so.0()(64bit) libmessageiobase.so.0()(64bit) libmessageparser.so.0()(64bit) libncurses.so.5()(64bit) libnsl.so.1()(64bit) libprotocol.so.0()(64bit) libprotocolasio.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.3.2)(64bit) libresolv.so.2()(64bit) librpc.so.0()(64bit) libsinfometer-0.0.47.so()(64bit) libsinfotypes-0.0.47.so()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.1)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.11)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.15)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.9)(64bit) libtinfo.so.5()(64bit) ncurses rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) = 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) = 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) = 4.0-1 rtld(GNU_HASH) rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) = 5.2-1 -- 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 785462] Review Request: sinfo - Show an overview of the available computers an their current load
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785462 --- Comment #9 from Guillermo Gómez guillermo.go...@gmail.com --- There are cases where the build process does not pickup the dependencies and for new packagers that could confuse them, add or not the Requires. In this particular case, there's no problem, both Requires can go away and in general we should not include explicit Requires for cases like this (my only motivation was educational). Reference: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Explicit_Requires -- 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 785462] Review Request: sinfo - Show an overview of the available computers an their current load
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785462 --- Comment #7 from Guillermo Gómez guillermo.go...@gmail.com --- The two requires must stay, please do not confuse build time and installation time, if Requires are gone, package will install without the proper support for runtime. No need for pkgname macro, use name macro. Don't miss tabs and spaces in the spec file. Delete .la files. No-utf8 files can be fixed with iconv tool (README). -- 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 785462] Review Request: sinfo - Show an overview of the available computers an their current load
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785462 Guillermo Gómez guillermo.go...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|bazanlui...@gmail.com |guillermo.go...@gmail.com -- 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 785462] Review Request: sinfo - Show an overview of the available computers an their current load
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785462 --- Comment #5 from Luis Bazan bazanlui...@gmail.com --- the srpm is new the spec is old -- 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 785462] Review Request: sinfo - Show an overview of the available computers an their current load
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785462
Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||volke...@gmx.at
--- Comment #6 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at ---
Remove the two Requires. rpmbuild figures that out.
There's no need to define that pkgname macro. Just use the name macro instead.
%setup -q is enough, as name-version is the default name.
Don't mix tabs and spaces in the spec file.
Delete the .la files, if you can't avoid creating them.
Having a more precise file section wouldn't hurt. Use the name macro in the
files section too.
%{_libdir}/sinfo/* -- This is wrong because it'd leave the directory without an
owner. Make that %{_libdir}/sinfo.
--
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 785462] Review Request: sinfo - Show an overview of the available computers an their current load
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785462 Luis Bazan bazanlui...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bazanlui...@gmail.com Assignee|guillermo.go...@gmail.com |bazanlui...@gmail.com -- 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 785462] Review Request: sinfo - Show an overview of the available computers an their current load
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785462 sophiekovalev...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sophiekovalevsky@fedoraproj ||ect.org --- Comment #4 from sophiekovalev...@fedoraproject.org --- I uploaded the modifications: It's available on: Spec URL: http://sophiekovalevsky.fedorapeople.org/sinfo.spec SRPM URL: http://sophiekovalevsky.fedorapeople.org/sinfo-0.0.47-1.fc17.src.rpm -- 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 785462] Review Request: sinfo - Show an overview of the available computers an their current load
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=785462
--- Comment #3 from Guillermo Gómez guillermo.go...@gmail.com 2012-02-26
06:02:30 EST ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
C/C++
[x]: MUST Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[!]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
Note: sinfo-devel-0.0.44-2.fc16.x86_64.rpm : sinfo-
devel-0.0.44-2.fc16.x86_64.rpm sinfo-devel-0.0.44-2.fc16.x86_64.rpm :
sinfo-0.0.44-2.fc16.x86_64.rpm sinfo-devel-0.0.44-2.fc16.x86_64.rpm :
sinfo-debuginfo-0.0.44-2.fc16.x86_64.rpm sinfo-0.0.44-2.fc16.x86_64.rpm :
sinfo-devel-0.0.44-2.fc16.x86_64.rpm sinfo-0.0.44-2.fc16.x86_64.rpm :
sinfo-0.0.44-2.fc16.x86_64.rpm sinfo-0.0.44-2.fc16.x86_64.rpm : sinfo-
debuginfo-0.0.44-2.fc16.x86_64.rpm sinfo-
debuginfo-0.0.44-2.fc16.x86_64.rpm : sinfo-devel-0.0.44-2.fc16.x86_64.rpm
sinfo-debuginfo-0.0.44-2.fc16.x86_64.rpm : sinfo-0.0.44-2.fc16.x86_64.rpm
sinfo-debuginfo-0.0.44-2.fc16.x86_64.rpm : sinfo-
debuginfo-0.0.44-2.fc16.x86_64.rpm
[ ]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules.
[ ]: MUST Package contains no static executables.
[ ]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[ ]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
[x]: MUST Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[!]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5
[ ]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[ ]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[ ]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: defattr() present in %files devel section. This is OK if
packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed
[ ]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[ ]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[ ]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[ ]: 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 is included in %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[ ]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[ ]: MUST Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: MUST Package does not generates any conflict.
[ ]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[ ]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[ ]: MUST Package installs properly.
[ ]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint sinfo-0.0.44-2.fc16.x86_64.rpm
sinfo.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/sinfo-0.0.44/README
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
rpmlint sinfo-debuginfo-0.0.44-2.fc16.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint sinfo-0.0.44-2.fc16.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint sinfo-devel-0.0.44-2.fc16.x86_64.rpm
sinfo-devel.x86_64: W: unexpanded-macro Summary(C) %{sinfo}
sinfo-devel.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/sinfo-devel-0.0.44/README
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
/home/gomix/tmp/785462/sinfo-0.0.44.tar.gz :
MD5SUM this package : cb0889a444b57f573b48c2afa866d585
MD5SUM upstream package : cb0889a444b57f573b48c2afa866d585
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and
[Bug 785462] Review Request: sinfo - Show an overview of the available computers an their current load
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=785462 Guillermo Gómez guillermo.go...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||guillermo.go...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|guillermo.go...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Guillermo Gómez guillermo.go...@gmail.com 2012-02-02 10:12:37 EST --- I'll take care of this one with Toshio watching over my shoulder for sponsorshipping (mentoring this new packager). -- 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 785462] Review Request: sinfo - Show an overview of the available computers an their current load
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=785462 Thomas Spura toms...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- 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 785462] Review Request: sinfo - Show an overview of the available computers an their current load
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=785462 Sophie Kovalevsky kiarakovalev...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Platform|All |x86_64 -- 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 785462] Review Request: sinfo - Show an overview of the available computers an their current load
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=785462 --- Comment #1 from Sophie Kovalevsky kiarakovalev...@gmail.com 2012-01-28 21:31:36 EST --- Additional: [kovalevsky@2B2020 x86_64]$ rpmlint -v sinfo-0.0.44-2.fc16.x86_64.rpm sinfo.x86_64: I: checking sinfo.x86_64: I: checking-url http://www.ant.uni-bremen.de/whomes/rinas/sinfo (timeout 10 seconds) sinfo.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/sinfo-0.0.44/README 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 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
