[Bug 847901] Review Request: spamprobe - A Bayesian spam filter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847901 Björn "besser82" Esser changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- 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 847901] Review Request: spamprobe - A Bayesian spam filter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847901 --- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System --- spamprobe-1.4d-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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 847901] Review Request: spamprobe - A Bayesian spam filter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847901 --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System --- spamprobe-1.4d-3.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 847901] Review Request: spamprobe - A Bayesian spam filter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847901 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System --- spamprobe-1.4d-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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 847901] Review Request: spamprobe - A Bayesian spam filter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847901 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-09-12 15:28:39 --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System --- spamprobe-1.4d-3.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 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 847901] Review Request: spamprobe - A Bayesian spam filter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847901 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System --- spamprobe-1.4d-3.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 847901] Review Request: spamprobe - A Bayesian spam filter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847901 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System --- spamprobe-1.4d-3.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 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 847901] Review Request: spamprobe - A Bayesian spam filter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847901 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System --- spamprobe-1.4d-3.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/spamprobe-1.4d-3.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 847901] Review Request: spamprobe - A Bayesian spam filter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847901 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System --- spamprobe-1.4d-3.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/spamprobe-1.4d-3.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 847901] Review Request: spamprobe - A Bayesian spam filter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847901 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- spamprobe-1.4d-3.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/spamprobe-1.4d-3.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 847901] Review Request: spamprobe - A Bayesian spam filter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847901 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- spamprobe-1.4d-3.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/spamprobe-1.4d-3.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 847901] Review Request: spamprobe - A Bayesian spam filter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847901 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- spamprobe-1.4d-3.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/spamprobe-1.4d-3.el5 -- 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 847901] Review Request: spamprobe - A Bayesian spam filter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847901 Fedora Update System 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 847901] Review Request: spamprobe - A Bayesian spam filter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847901 --- Comment #13 from Jon Ciesla --- 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 847901] Review Request: spamprobe - A Bayesian spam filter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847901 Steven Roberts changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #12 from Steven Roberts --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: spamprobe Short Description: A Bayesian spam filter Owners: strobert Branches: f16 f17 f18 el5 el6 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 847901] Review Request: spamprobe - A Bayesian spam filter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847901 --- Comment #11 from Steven Roberts --- I was wondering about bumping the the release number. I wasn't sure if should bump inside of a review. I'm good with bumping the number more often. Thank you for the sourceforge link. I had been having difficulty finding a good reference on SF.net as to what direct link to use. I thinkt he prdownloads is likely an older one. I've change the link (and upped the released number :) ) Thank you for the review and sponsorship. A bit energizing to be more active in the Open Source community again. -- 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 847901] Review Request: spamprobe - A Bayesian spam filter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847901 Kevin Fenzi changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ke...@scrye.com Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #10 from Kevin Fenzi --- FYI, moving forward, it's good to bump release and add a changelog entry for each set of changes in a review (this avoids confusion as to what exact version of the spec is being reviewed). You may want to adjust the Source url per: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Sourceforge.net (You can do that before you import it) I don't see any further blockers here though, so this package is APPROVED. I'll go ahead and sponsor you. If you have any questions or concerns about the process feel free to catch me on irc (my nick is nirik) or drop me an email. Welcome to the fun. ;) -- 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 847901] Review Request: spamprobe - A Bayesian spam filter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847901 --- Comment #9 from Steven Roberts --- Did the two changes. New spec,SRPM uploaded. Funny, those were from me dropping %makeinstall :) I had actually just started looking at fedora-review. I was reading the fedora review SIG pages. -- 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 847901] Review Request: spamprobe - A Bayesian spam filter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847901
--- Comment #8 from Kevin Fenzi ---
So, here's what fedora-review says:
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
C/C++
[x]: MUST Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[ ]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules.
[ ]: MUST Package contains no static executables.
[x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[ ]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[ ]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: 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 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. Licenses found:
"zlib/libpng" For detailed output of licensecheck see file:
/home/kevin/847901-spamprobe/licensecheck.txt
[!]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters.
[ ]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[ ]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[ ]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[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.
[ ]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[ ]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[ ]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files se
[Bug 847901] Review Request: spamprobe - A Bayesian spam filter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847901 --- Comment #7 from Steven Roberts --- thank you for the feedback. please let me know what I should be changing still :) -- 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 847901] Review Request: spamprobe - A Bayesian spam filter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847901
--- Comment #6 from Steven Roberts ---
new SRPM URL: http://rpm.ysl.org/fedora-review/spamprobe-1.4d-2.el6.src.rpm
%make_install is not available under EL 5, hence the compile errors. I
switched to using: 'make DESTDIR=%{buildroot} install' and that works on all 5
of the platforms I listed above.
new SRPM, spec file uploaded.
--
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 847901] Review Request: spamprobe - A Bayesian spam filter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847901 --- Comment #5 from Steven Roberts --- 1. dropped the prefix specification. This spec file was created a while ago and back then was cut from template that used relocatable packages. It was back in the days before LVM2, yum and was best practices at the time. I read the Fedora guidelines on it and makes sense to drop it in this day and age. 2. I had thought about adding it (I've seen it as a user for years now) but I thought someplace I read that you should only do so when needed. I re-read that disttag page and sounds like it is recommended. so I've added it. 3. I had some weird compiler errors when using %make_install instead of %makeinstall. 4. Yup, that is the upstream naming. Added a comment in the spec file. it is like openssh and 4.3p2 :). I'm going to poke at makeinstall a bit more and I'll post back in here on what I'm able to come up with. -- 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 847901] Review Request: spamprobe - A Bayesian spam filter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847901
--- Comment #4 from Kevin Fenzi ---
Some general comments/suggestions/changes before the review:
1. Please don't define %{prefix}
2. (not a blocker, but IMHO a good idea) consider using the dist tag on your
version
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:DistTag
3. If you can avoid using %makeinstall that would be good. See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Why_the_.25makeinstall_macro_should_not_be_used
4. I'm assuming upstream releases packages in a post release a, b, c, d, way
right?
If so, then your version is fine. If not you may want to look at:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Post-Release_packages
and add a note/comment in the spec about what upstream does here. ;)
--
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 847901] Review Request: spamprobe - A Bayesian spam filter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847901 Kevin Fenzi changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Kevin Fenzi --- Look for a review on this hopefully later today... -- 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 847901] Review Request: spamprobe - A Bayesian spam filter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847901
--- Comment #2 from Steven Roberts ---
updated make invocation to use %{?_smp_mflags} for parallel building. specfile
and SRPM updated.
did tests locally on a centos6 box with -J 3 set, koji f18, and koji EL6 and
all worked fine.
--
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 847901] Review Request: spamprobe - A Bayesian spam filter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847901 Kevin Fenzi changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ke...@scrye.com --- Comment #1 from Kevin Fenzi --- I'll try and look at this in the next few days, but anyone else can feel free to do so sooner if they like. ;) -- 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 847901] Review Request: spamprobe - A Bayesian spam filter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847901 Steven Roberts changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- 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
