[Bug 845498] Review Request: cura-networking - CIM providers for network management

2012-08-06 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845498

Radek Novacek rnova...@redhat.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
  Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs?
Last Closed||2012-08-06 05:59:41

--- Comment #4 from Radek Novacek rnova...@redhat.com ---
Imported, thanks everyone.

-- 
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 845498] Review Request: cura-networking - CIM providers for network management

2012-08-06 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845498

--- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com ---
SCM aready 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 845498] Review Request: cura-networking - CIM providers for network management

2012-08-03 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845498

Jan Safranek jsafr...@redhat.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||jsafr...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jsafr...@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 845498] Review Request: cura-networking - CIM providers for network management

2012-08-03 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845498

Jan Safranek jsafr...@redhat.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+

--- Comment #1 from Jan Safranek jsafr...@redhat.com ---
 C/C++ 
[x]: MUST Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: MUST Package contains no static executables.
[x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: MUST Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if
 present.
 /usr/lib64/cmpi/libcmpiCura_Networking.so is CMPI plugin for Pegasus or
SFCB.


 Generic 
[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
 Note: No rpmlint messages.
[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 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.
[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.
[x]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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
[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.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
 *No copyright* UNKNOWN, *No copyright* GENERATED FILE, GPL (v2 or
 later) For detailed output of licensecheck see file:
 /home/jsafrane/tmp/845498-cura-networking/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[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 Package is not relocatable.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
[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.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[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.
[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 / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[?]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[x]: SHOULD Spec use 

[Bug 845498] Review Request: cura-networking - CIM providers for network management

2012-08-03 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845498

Radek Novacek rnova...@redhat.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-cvs?

--- Comment #2 from Radek Novacek rnova...@redhat.com ---
New Package SCM Request
===
Package Name: cura-networking
Short Description: CIM providers for network management
Owners: rnovacek
Branches: f17 f16
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 845498] Review Request: cura-networking - CIM providers for network management

2012-08-03 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845498

--- Comment #3 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