[Bug 849200] Review Request: connman - A daemon for managing internet connections on Linux
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849200 Sergey V. Udaltsov sergey.udalt...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sergey.udalt...@gmail.com --- Comment #14 from Sergey V. Udaltsov sergey.udalt...@gmail.com --- Trying to build and install that rpm on FC17: sudo rpm -i ../RPMS/x86_64/connman-1.5-3.fc17.x86_64.rpm /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.cVjOwI: line 1: fg: no job control warning: %post(connman-1.5-3.fc17.x86_64) scriptlet failed, exit status 1 Same thing with rpm -e Any hints? -- 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=o2cYOrHAN1a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 849200] Review Request: connman - A daemon for managing internet connections on Linux
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849200 Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #9 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org --- Seems good to me, so approved. I didn't test thoroughly because there is no ui, but it successfully broke my network on start so I guess it started 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 849200] Review Request: connman - A daemon for managing internet connections on Linux
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849200 --- Comment #10 from Pavel Simerda psime...@redhat.com --- Seems good to me, so approved. Thanks. but it successfully broke my network on start so I guess it started fine :) Sounds good :). -- 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 849200] Review Request: connman - A daemon for managing internet connections on Linux
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849200 Pavel Simerda psime...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #11 from Pavel Simerda psime...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: connman Short Description: A daemon for managing internet connections on Linux Owners: pavlix Branches: 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 849200] Review Request: connman - A daemon for managing internet connections on Linux
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849200 --- Comment #12 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 849200] Review Request: connman - A daemon for managing internet connections on Linux
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849200 Pavel Simerda psime...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-08-19 19:51:56 --- Comment #13 from Pavel Simerda psime...@redhat.com --- Thanks. -- 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 849200] Review Request: connman - A daemon for managing internet connections on Linux
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849200 --- Comment #5 from Pavel Simerda psime...@redhat.com --- Spec URL: http://data.pavlix.net/fedora/connman.spec SRPM URL: data.pavlix.net/fedora/connman-1.5-2.fc17.src.rpm -- 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 849200] Review Request: connman - A daemon for managing internet connections on Linux
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849200
--- Comment #6 from Pavel Simerda psime...@redhat.com ---
- %{_includedir}/connman/ is unowned
Fixed.
- Various scriptlets are wrong :
%systemd_preun apache-httpd.service
Bad copy-pasting from wiki. Fixed.
--
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 849200] Review Request: connman - A daemon for managing internet connections on Linux
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849200 --- Comment #7 from Pavel Simerda psime...@redhat.com --- Forget about these... will issue a new version. -- 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 849200] Review Request: connman - A daemon for managing internet connections on Linux
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849200 --- Comment #8 from Pavel Simerda psime...@redhat.com --- - license is not shipped with the rpms Fixed. - there is a test suite shipped with connman, could it be run in %check I've looked at the tests directory and the tests actually seem to be intended for manual run time testing, not automatic build time testing. New build: Spec: http://data.pavlix.net/fedora/connman.spec SRPM: http://data.pavlix.net/fedora/connman-1.5-3.fc17.src.rpm -- 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 849200] Review Request: connman - A daemon for managing internet connections on Linux
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849200 --- Comment #1 from Pavel Simerda psime...@redhat.com --- From rpmlint: connman.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib Only a systemd unit. Is this a problem in rpmlint?t connman.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary connmand Yeah. They didn't care to provide one. -- 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 849200] Review Request: connman - A daemon for managing internet connections on Linux
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849200 Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@zarb.org --- Comment #2 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org --- Yep, that's just 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 849200] Review Request: connman - A daemon for managing internet connections on Linux
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849200
--- Comment #3 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org ---
A few notes :
- %{_includedir}/connman/ is unowned
- Various scriptlets are wrong :
%systemd_preun apache-httpd.service
--
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 849200] Review Request: connman - A daemon for managing internet connections on Linux
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849200
Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@zarb.org
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #4 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org ---
A few others notes :
- license is not shipped with the rpms
- there is a test suite shipped with connman, could it be run in %check
For the rest, this is good, so if you fix the 4 issues, I will approve the
package.
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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.
[x]: %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.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: 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]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[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
[-]: Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[!]: 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.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
GPL (v2), GPL (v2 or later) For detailed output of licensecheck see
file:
/home/misc/checkout/git/FedoraReview/849200-connman/licensecheck.txt
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. (EPEL5)
Note: Only applicable for EL-5
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[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.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
= 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]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm
