[Bug 828370] Review Request: drupal6-comment_bonus_api - Comment Bonus API for Drupal6
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828370 --- Comment #15 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=zalatDMQOfa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 828370] Review Request: drupal6-comment_bonus_api - Comment Bonus API for Drupal6
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828370 Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||shawn.iwin...@gmail.com Flags|fedora-cvs+ | Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #14 from Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: drupal6-comment_bonus_api New Branches: el5 Owners: ansilva siwinski InitialCC: Adding el5 branch to follow most other drupal6 packages. -- 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=XhupgmOvhWa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 828370] Review Request: drupal6-comment_bonus_api - Comment Bonus API for Drupal6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828370 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- drupal6-comment_bonus_api-1.0-4.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 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 828370] Review Request: drupal6-comment_bonus_api - Comment Bonus API for Drupal6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828370 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-08-24 23:02:26 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- drupal6-comment_bonus_api-1.0-4.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 828370] Review Request: drupal6-comment_bonus_api - Comment Bonus API for Drupal6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828370 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- drupal6-comment_bonus_api-1.0-4.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 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 828370] Review Request: drupal6-comment_bonus_api - Comment Bonus API for Drupal6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828370 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- drupal6-comment_bonus_api-1.0-4.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drupal6-comment_bonus_api-1.0-4.el6 -- 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 828370] Review Request: drupal6-comment_bonus_api - Comment Bonus API for Drupal6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828370 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |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 828370] Review Request: drupal6-comment_bonus_api - Comment Bonus API for Drupal6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828370 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- drupal6-comment_bonus_api-1.0-4.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drupal6-comment_bonus_api-1.0-4.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 828370] Review Request: drupal6-comment_bonus_api - Comment Bonus API for Drupal6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828370 Anderson Silva ansi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Anderson Silva ansi...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: drupal6-comment_bonus_api Short Description: Comment Bonus API for Drupal6 Owners: afsilva Branches: f17 f18 el6 -- 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 828370] Review Request: drupal6-comment_bonus_api - Comment Bonus API for Drupal6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828370 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). f18 not yet branched. -- 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 828370] Review Request: drupal6-comment_bonus_api - Comment Bonus API for Drupal6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828370 Wesley Hearn whe...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Wesley Hearn whe...@redhat.com --- Thanks for the fix, it is now passed! -- 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 828370] Review Request: drupal6-comment_bonus_api - Comment Bonus API for Drupal6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828370 --- Comment #5 from Anderson Silva ansi...@redhat.com --- Updated: Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/~ansilva/drupal6-comment_bonus_api.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/~ansilva/drupal6-comment_bonus_api-1.0-4.fc16.src.rpm Thanks, AS -- 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 828370] Review Request: drupal6-comment_bonus_api - Comment Bonus API for Drupal6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828370 Wesley Hearn whe...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||whe...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|whe...@redhat.com 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 828370] Review Request: drupal6-comment_bonus_api - Comment Bonus API for Drupal6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828370 --- Comment #2 from Wesley Hearn whe...@redhat.com --- drupal6-comment_bonus_api.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C This module enhances the standard Drupal comment module's API by providing hooks in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Summary_and_description -- 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 828370] Review Request: drupal6-comment_bonus_api - Comment Bonus API for Drupal6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828370 --- Comment #3 from Anderson Silva ansi...@redhat.com --- life would be so much easier if rpmlint would actually show me these errors... for whatever reason it did not throw an error on the description... should be fixed now: Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/~ansilva/drupal6-comment_bonus_api.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/~ansilva/drupal6-comment_bonus_api-1.0-3.fc16.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 828370] Review Request: drupal6-comment_bonus_api - Comment Bonus API for Drupal6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828370
--- Comment #4 from Wesley Hearn whe...@redhat.com ---
Only problem:
[E] - 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.
---
[O] - MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.
[O] - MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines .
[O] - MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. .
[-] - MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
[O] - MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and
meet the Licensing Guidelines .
[O] - MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[E] - 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.
[O] - MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[O] - MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[O] - 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.
[O] - MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[-] - 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.
[O] - 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.
[O] - MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using
the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[O] - 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.
[O] - MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[O] - 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.
[O] - 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.
[O] - 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)
[O] - MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be
set with executable permissions, for example.
[O] - MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[O] - MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[O] - 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).
[O] - 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.
[O] - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[O] - MUST: Development files must be in a -devel package.
[O] - MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} =
%{version}-%{release}
[O] - MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.
[O] - 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.
[O] - MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed
should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This
means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever
[Bug 828370] Review Request: drupal6-comment_bonus_api - Comment Bonus API for Drupal6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828370 --- Comment #1 from Anderson Silva ansi...@redhat.com --- *** Bug 828366 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
