[Bug 844173] Review Request: emacs-evil - Extensible vi layer for Emacs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844173 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- emacs-evil-0.1-0.3.20120902gitc13b90e.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 844173] Review Request: emacs-evil - Extensible vi layer for Emacs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844173 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- emacs-evil-0.1-0.3.20120902gitc13b90e.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 844173] Review Request: emacs-evil - Extensible vi layer for Emacs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844173 --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- emacs-evil-0.1-0.3.20120902gitc13b90e.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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844173] Review Request: emacs-evil - Extensible vi layer for Emacs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844173 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- emacs-evil-0.1-0.3.20120902gitc13b90e.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/emacs-evil-0.1-0.3.20120902gitc13b90e.fc18 -- 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 844173] Review Request: emacs-evil - Extensible vi layer for Emacs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844173 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- emacs-evil-0.1-0.3.20120902gitc13b90e.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/emacs-evil-0.1-0.3.20120902gitc13b90e.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 844173] Review Request: emacs-evil - Extensible vi layer for Emacs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844173 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- emacs-evil-0.1-0.3.20120902gitc13b90e.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/emacs-evil-0.1-0.3.20120902gitc13b90e.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 844173] Review Request: emacs-evil - Extensible vi layer for Emacs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844173 --- Comment #12 from Sébastien Willmann sebastien.willm...@gmail.com --- Wrote to upstream mailing list about the tests. -- 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 844173] Review Request: emacs-evil - Extensible vi layer for Emacs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844173 Sébastien Willmann sebastien.willm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-09-03 09:26:56 --- Comment #13 from Sébastien Willmann sebastien.willm...@gmail.com --- Built successfully for all branches. I'll wait for upstream's answer before submitting updates. -- 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 844173] Review Request: emacs-evil - Extensible vi layer for Emacs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844173
Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org ---
There is 2 issues :
1) package doesn't install, but i guess it does on rawhide or f18, so it is ok
for me.
There is no %check, despites having a test target in the makefile. Could you
check and add it to the spec ?
otherwise, this is approved.
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
[!]: Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
= MUST items =
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]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[-]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: 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
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: %defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: 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 does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[-]: Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[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.
[!]: Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: No description for test named CheckResultdir
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 286720 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[-]: 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]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[-]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not
[Bug 844173] Review Request: emacs-evil - Extensible vi layer for Emacs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844173 --- Comment #8 from Sébastien Willmann sebastien.willm...@gmail.com --- You can solve the installation problem by enabling updates-testing. There is a test target in the Makefile (I didn't notice it) but some tests fail. -- 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 844173] Review Request: emacs-evil - Extensible vi layer for Emacs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844173 Sébastien Willmann sebastien.willm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #9 from Sébastien Willmann sebastien.willm...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: emacs-evil Short Description: Extensible vi layer for Emacs Owners: wilqu Branches: f16 f17 f18 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 844173] Review Request: emacs-evil - Extensible vi layer for Emacs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844173 --- Comment #10 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org --- Tests failing should be discussed with upstream, i think either there is a compatibility issue, or the tests are wrong. -- 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 844173] Review Request: emacs-evil - Extensible vi layer for Emacs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844173 --- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844173] Review Request: emacs-evil - Extensible vi layer for Emacs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844173 Bug 844173 depends on bug 845134, which changed state. Bug 845134 Summary: Review Request: emacs-goto-chg - Emacs add-on to go to last change in current buffer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845134 What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE -- 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 844173] Review Request: emacs-evil - Extensible vi layer for Emacs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844173 Bug 844173 depends on bug 845769, which changed state. Bug 845769 Summary: Review Request: emacs-undo-tree - Treats undo history as a tree of changes https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845769 What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE -- 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 844173] Review Request: emacs-evil - Extensible vi layer for Emacs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844173 Sébastien Willmann sebastien.willm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||845769 -- 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 844173] Review Request: emacs-evil - Extensible vi layer for Emacs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844173 --- Comment #6 from Sébastien Willmann sebastien.willm...@gmail.com --- Spec URL: http://wilqu.fedorapeople.org/reviews/emacs-evil/emacs-evil.spec SRPM URL: http://wilqu.fedorapeople.org/reviews/emacs-evil/emacs-evil-0.1-0.2.20120804gitd0cb72b.fc17.src.rpm Upstream answered positively. All source files now contain license information, and COPYING has been added. The license has been upgraded to GPLv3+ in the same time. I also added emacs-goto-chg and emacs-undo-tree in Requires. Those packages also need to be reviewed. -- 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 844173] Review Request: emacs-evil - Extensible vi layer for Emacs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844173 Sébastien Willmann sebastien.willm...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||845134 -- 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 844173] Review Request: emacs-evil - Extensible vi layer for Emacs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844173 --- Comment #4 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org --- Indeed. But this would still be cleaner to have the notice in every file ( to avoid something like http://spot.livejournal.com/315383.html ), and at least have the license shipped in a different file. -- 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 844173] Review Request: emacs-evil - Extensible vi layer for Emacs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844173 --- Comment #5 from Sébastien Willmann sebastien.willm...@gmail.com --- Wrote to upstream mailing list. I just noticed that the package depends on external libraries. I'll have to add them to requires, and maybe to package them as well. -- 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 844173] Review Request: emacs-evil - Extensible vi layer for Emacs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844173 --- Comment #1 from Sébastien Willmann sebastien.willm...@gmail.com --- `-- rpmlint emacs-evil-0.1-0.1.20120729git052e701.fc17.src.rpm emacs-evil.src: W: spelling-error Summary(fr) vi - ci, fi, vu emacs-evil.src: W: spelling-error %description -l fr vi - ci, fi, vu emacs-evil.src: W: spelling-error %description -l fr vim - vil, via, vie emacs-evil.src: W: invalid-url Source0: evil-0.1.tar.xz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. `-- rpmlint emacs-evil-0.1-0.1.20120729git052e701.fc17.noarch.rpm emacs-evil.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(fr) vi - ci, fi, vu emacs-evil.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l fr vi - ci, fi, vu emacs-evil.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l fr vim - vil, via, vie 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. -- 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 844173] Review Request: emacs-evil - Extensible vi layer for Emacs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844173 Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@zarb.org Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@zarb.org Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org --- Hi, There is no license shipped upstream, nor any mention of any license in source code ( except the documentation under GFDL ) So we cannot distribute it, can you ask upstream to correct this ? -- 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 844173] Review Request: emacs-evil - Extensible vi layer for Emacs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844173 --- Comment #3 from Sébastien Willmann sebastien.willm...@gmail.com --- The file evil.el contains license informations (line 60). -- 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
