[Bug 829030] Review Request: drupal6-flag - Flag module for Drupal6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829030 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- drupal6-flag-2.1-3.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drupal6-flag-2.1-3.el5 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 829030] Review Request: drupal6-flag - Flag module for Drupal6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829030 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- drupal6-flag-2.1-3.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drupal6-flag-2.1-3.el6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 829030] Review Request: drupal6-flag - Flag module for Drupal6
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829030 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- drupal6-flag-1.3-3.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=fhFR1rbWVYa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 829030] Review Request: drupal6-flag - Flag module for Drupal6
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829030 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2013-04-01 18:27:40 -- 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=3oHjvLtsrUa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 829030] Review Request: drupal6-flag - Flag module for Drupal6
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829030 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- drupal6-flag-1.3-3.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=pUkr1GEtzPa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 829030] Review Request: drupal6-flag - Flag module for Drupal6
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829030 --- Comment #11 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=9q1xadSxqaa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 829030] Review Request: drupal6-flag - Flag module for Drupal6
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829030 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- drupal6-flag-1.3-3.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drupal6-flag-1.3-3.el6 -- 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=39x9WQqKdwa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 829030] Review Request: drupal6-flag - Flag module for Drupal6
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829030 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA -- 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=rptD3jW1gFa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 829030] Review Request: drupal6-flag - Flag module for Drupal6
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829030 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- drupal6-flag-1.3-3.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. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=kwHQy1ESV8a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 829030] Review Request: drupal6-flag - Flag module for Drupal6
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829030 Anderson Silva ansi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Anderson Silva ansi...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: drupal6-flag Short Description: Flag is a flexible flagging system that is completely customizable by the administrator Owners: afsilva siwinski Branches: f17 f18 f19 el6 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=ZMjoFjM5OWa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 829030] Review Request: drupal6-flag - Flag module for Drupal6
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829030 --- Comment #7 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=sylIDygWJDa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 829030] Review Request: drupal6-flag - Flag module for Drupal6
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829030 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. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=zGkeptnzdRa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 829030] Review Request: drupal6-flag - Flag module for Drupal6
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829030 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- drupal6-flag-1.3-3.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drupal6-flag-1.3-3.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=WlOrwdQJQFa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 829030] Review Request: drupal6-flag - Flag module for Drupal6
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829030 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- drupal6-flag-1.3-3.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drupal6-flag-1.3-3.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=76TH6n0Q1Xa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 829030] Review Request: drupal6-flag - Flag module for Drupal6
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829030 Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||shawn.iwin...@gmail.com Flags|fedora-cvs+ | Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: drupal6-flag 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=o8hyD5irYqa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 829030] Review Request: drupal6-flag - Flag module for Drupal6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829030 --- Comment #4 from Anderson Silva ansi...@redhat.com --- the reason there is a different license is because the origianl LICENSE shipped from upstream contains the incorrect mailing address for the FSF which actually throws an error by rpmlint. I think the error is: E: incorrect-fsf-address. I have already released several rpms with this kind of fix, I believe it was what I was told that needed to be done. -- 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 829030] Review Request: drupal6-flag - Flag module for Drupal6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829030 --- Comment #5 from Troy Dawson tdaw...@redhat.com --- That was the only problem I found, so I approve this request. It would be a good idea to inform upstream of this license problem, if you haven't already. -- 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 829030] Review Request: drupal6-flag - Flag module for Drupal6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829030 Troy Dawson tdaw...@redhat.com 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 829030] Review Request: drupal6-flag - Flag module for Drupal6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829030
Troy Dawson tdaw...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|tdaw...@redhat.com
--- Comment #3 from Troy Dawson tdaw...@redhat.com ---
Formal Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[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 %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 Package contains no bundled libraries.
[X]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[X]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: defattr() present in %files section. This is OK if packaging
for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed
[-]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[X]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package
[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 Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5
[-]: 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.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[X]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters.
[X]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[X]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[X]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: MUST If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[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 Package is not relocatable.
[X]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[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 systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[!]: SHOULD Buildroot is not present
Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5
[!]: SHOULD Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL5
[!]: 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.
[X]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[?]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[X]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[!]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
Note: Source2 (LICENSE.txt) Source0 (flag-6.x-1.3.tar.gz)
[x]:
[Bug 829030] Review Request: drupal6-flag - Flag module for Drupal6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829030
Troy Dawson tdaw...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tdaw...@redhat.com
--- Comment #1 from Troy Dawson tdaw...@redhat.com ---
Informal Package Review
==
If you are planning on building this for EPEL, than I would pass this rpm.
If you are not planning on building this for EPEL, then you need to clean up
the buildroot stuff. See the issues at the bottom.
==
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.
[X]: 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.
[!]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5
[X]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[X]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[!]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL
[X]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: defattr() present in %files 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.
[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.
[!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5
[-]: 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.
[X]: 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.
[X]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[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.
[X]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[-]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[X]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[!]: 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.
[X]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
Issues:
[!]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
[!]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm
[Bug 829030] Review Request: drupal6-flag - Flag module for Drupal6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829030 --- Comment #2 from Anderson Silva ansi...@redhat.com --- It is for EPEL and Fedora. Note that I am using a drupal template for the spec file that has been provided by the Fedora community themselves: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Drupal_module_specfile_template -- 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
