[Bug 823236] Review Request: sugar-recall - A series of memory games

2012-07-26 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823236

--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System  ---
sugar-recall-2-2.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.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 823236] Review Request: sugar-recall - A series of memory games

2012-07-26 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823236

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2012-07-26 18:23:28

--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System  ---
sugar-recall-2-2.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.

-- 
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 823236] Review Request: sugar-recall - A series of memory games

2012-07-19 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823236

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA

--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System  ---
sugar-recall-2-2.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 testing repository.

-- 
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 823236] Review Request: sugar-recall - A series of memory games

2012-07-18 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823236

--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
sugar-recall-2-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sugar-recall-2-2.fc17

-- 
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 823236] Review Request: sugar-recall - A series of memory games

2012-07-18 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823236

--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
sugar-recall-2-2.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sugar-recall-2-2.fc16

-- 
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 823236] Review Request: sugar-recall - A series of memory games

2012-07-18 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823236

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED

-- 
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 823236] Review Request: sugar-recall - A series of memory games

2012-07-16 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823236

Danishka Navin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||danis...@gmail.com

--- Comment #9 from Danishka Navin  ---
*** Bug 840430 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

-- 
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 823236] Review Request: sugar-recall - A series of memory games

2012-07-13 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823236

--- Comment #8 from Jason Tibbitts  ---
It's far too late for F15 branches; it's already gone EOL.

Otherwise
Git done (by process-git-requests).

-- 
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 823236] Review Request: sugar-recall - A series of memory games

2012-07-12 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823236

Kalpa Welivitigoda  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-cvs?

--- Comment #7 from Kalpa Welivitigoda  ---
New Package SCM Request
===
Package Name: sugar-recall
Short Description: A series of memory games
Owners: callkalpa
Branches: f15 f16 f17
InitialCC:

-- 
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 823236] Review Request: sugar-recall - A series of memory games

2012-07-12 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823236

--- Comment #6 from Kalpa Welivitigoda  ---
Thanks Dan.

-- 
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 823236] Review Request: sugar-recall - A series of memory games

2012-07-10 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823236

Dan Callaghan  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+

--- Comment #5 from Dan Callaghan  ---
Good job, Kalpa.

This package is APPROVED.

-- 
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 823236] Review Request: sugar-recall - A series of memory games

2012-07-10 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823236

--- Comment #4 from Kalpa Welivitigoda  ---
Dan, here are the new files after fixing the issues,

Spec URL: http://callkalpa.fedorapeople.org/sugar-recall/sugar-recall.spec
SRPM URL:
http://callkalpa.fedorapeople.org/sugar-recall/sugar-recall-2-2.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 823236] Review Request: sugar-recall - A series of memory games

2012-07-09 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823236

--- Comment #3 from Dan Callaghan  ---
Agreed, we can ignore the extraneous Requires: /usr/bin/env. Can you please
update the spec to fix the other three issues?

-- 
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 823236] Review Request: sugar-recall - A series of memory games

2012-07-02 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823236

--- Comment #2 from Kalpa Welivitigoda  ---
Let's just ignore the issue the same way in
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823234

-- 
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 823236] Review Request: sugar-recall - A series of memory games

2012-07-01 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823236

--- Comment #1 from Dan Callaghan  ---
A few issues at the bottom.

Package Review
==

Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated



 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.
[-]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
 Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: 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
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: 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 Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: 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.
[!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.

rpmlint sugar-recall-2-1.fc18.noarch.rpm

sugar-recall.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ablity -> ability
sugar-recall.noarch: W: non-standard-group Sugar/Activities
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.


rpmlint sugar-recall-2-1.fc18.src.rpm

sugar-recall.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ablity -> ability
sugar-recall.src: W: non-standard-group Sugar/Activities
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/dan/fedora/reviews/823236/Recall-2.tar.bz2 :
  MD5SUM this package : 63ac31f65f5b78d1c48ffc21ddc11925
  MD5SUM upstream package : 63ac31f65f5b78d1c48ffc21ddc11925

[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[-]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: SHOULD 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]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
 /usr/sbin.
[!]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
 --requires).
[x]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
 upstream.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[-]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.

Issues:
[!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Remove %defattr if not targetting EPEL5.
[!]: MUST License field in the package

[Bug 823236] Review Request: sugar-recall - A series of memory games

2012-07-01 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823236

Dan Callaghan  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-review?

-- 
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 823236] Review Request: sugar-recall - A series of memory games

2012-07-01 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823236

Dan Callaghan  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||dcall...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|dcall...@redhat.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