[Bug 830777] Review Request: clucy - Clojure interface to Lucene
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830777 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-07-12 14:55:09 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- clucy-0.3.0-2.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 830777] Review Request: clucy - Clojure interface to Lucene
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830777 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- clucy-0.3.0-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 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 830777] Review Request: clucy - Clojure interface to Lucene
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830777 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 830777] Review Request: clucy - Clojure interface to Lucene
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830777 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- clucy-0.3.0-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/clucy-0.3.0-2.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 830777] Review Request: clucy - Clojure interface to Lucene
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830777 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- clucy-0.3.0-2.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/clucy-0.3.0-2.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 830777] Review Request: clucy - Clojure interface to Lucene
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830777 Michel Alexandre Salim michel+...@sylvestre.me changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel+...@sylvestre.me --- Thanks! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: clucy Short Description: Clojure interface to Lucene Owners: salimma Branches: 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 830777] Review Request: clucy - Clojure interface to Lucene
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830777 --- Comment #5 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 830777] Review Request: clucy - Clojure interface to Lucene
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830777
Kushal Das kushal...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Kushal Das kushal...@gmail.com ---
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)
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[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.
[!]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
Note: Found : Vendor: weavejester
We will call it as 'upstream' before comitting.
[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.
[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).
[x]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
Tested with Leiningen 1.7.1
[x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[x]: SHOULD Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[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.
[x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[!]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
But we'll need to wait until Leiningen before we can run tests easily
[x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
Issues:
[!]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
Note: Found : Vendor: weavejester
We will call it as 'upstream' before comitting.
Review APPROVED.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review
[Bug 830777] Review Request: clucy - Clojure interface to Lucene
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830777 Kushal Das kushal...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||kushal...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|kushal...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Kushal Das kushal...@gmail.com --- Taking this 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 830777] Review Request: clucy - Clojure interface to Lucene
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830777 Michel Alexandre Salim michel+...@sylvestre.me changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||830714 -- 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 830777] Review Request: clucy - Clojure interface to Lucene
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830777 Michel Alexandre Salim michel+...@sylvestre.me changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||830784 -- 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 830777] Review Request: clucy - Clojure interface to Lucene
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830777 --- Comment #1 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel+...@sylvestre.me --- Spec URL: http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/clojure/clucy.spec SRPM URL: http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/clojure/clucy-0.3.0-2.fc17.src.rpm Source-only Leiningen libraries cannot be built using Maven - switching clucy to a scriptlet that builds the JAR manually, borrowed from upstream's Debian branch -- 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
