[Bug 853050] Review Request: hawtbuf - A rich byte buffer library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853050 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853050] Review Request: hawtbuf - A rich byte buffer library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853050 --- Comment #14 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. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853050] Review Request: hawtbuf - A rich byte buffer library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853050 Darryl L. Pierce dpie...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dpie...@redhat.com Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #13 from Darryl L. Pierce dpie...@redhat.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: hawtbuf New Branches: epel7 Owners: mcpierce InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 853050] Review Request: hawtbuf - A rich byte buffer library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853050 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-09-17 13:29:32 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- hawtbuf-1.9-2.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 853050] Review Request: hawtbuf - A rich byte buffer library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853050 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- hawtbuf-1.9-2.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 853050] Review Request: hawtbuf - A rich byte buffer library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853050 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- hawtbuf-1.9-2.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 853050] Review Request: hawtbuf - A rich byte buffer library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853050 --- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/hawtbuf/1/hawtbuf.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/hawtbuf/1/hawtbuf-1.9-2.fc16.src.rpm - removed hawtbuf-tests.jar - performed integration test -- 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 853050] Review Request: hawtbuf - A rich byte buffer library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853050 Matt Spaulding mspauldin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Matt Spaulding mspauldin...@gmail.com --- Thanks for making the changes, Gil. Everything looks good. APPROVED. -- 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 853050] Review Request: hawtbuf - A rich byte buffer library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853050 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: hawtbuf Short Description: A rich byte buffer library Owners: gil Branches: f17 f18 InitialCC: java-sig -- 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 853050] Review Request: hawtbuf - A rich byte buffer library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853050 --- Comment #7 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 853050] Review Request: hawtbuf - A rich byte buffer library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853050 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 853050] Review Request: hawtbuf - A rich byte buffer library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853050 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- hawtbuf-1.9-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/hawtbuf-1.9-2.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 853050] Review Request: hawtbuf - A rich byte buffer library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853050 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- hawtbuf-1.9-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/hawtbuf-1.9-2.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 853050] Review Request: hawtbuf - A rich byte buffer library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853050 Matt Spaulding mspauldin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mspauldin...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mspauldin...@gmail.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 853050] Review Request: hawtbuf - A rich byte buffer library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853050
--- Comment #3 from Matt Spaulding mspauldin...@gmail.com ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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.
[-]: 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 Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: 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.
[-]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package
[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
[-]: 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.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Apache (v2.0)
[x]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: 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.
[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.
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.
[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 systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: SHOULD Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: SHOULD Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[-]: 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).
[-]: 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 SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[x]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
[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
[Bug 853050] Review Request: hawtbuf - A rich byte buffer library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853050 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||853052 -- 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 853050] Review Request: hawtbuf - A rich byte buffer library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853050 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||853055 -- 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 853050] Review Request: hawtbuf - A rich byte buffer library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853050
Erik Schilling ablu.erikschill...@googlemail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ablu.erikschilling@googlema
||il.com
--- Comment #1 from Erik Schilling ablu.erikschill...@googlemail.com ---
Hi.
First: I am no packager. This is an informal review:
Source0 should point to a location where the upstream tarball is located.
Also it looks like you took latest git status. There are tags inside of the git
repository that mark the releases. Checkout
https://github.com/fusesource/hawtbuf/tags.
You can also set the Source0 url to this location.
Making use of %{name} in the Source0 field cannot hurt either.
Best regards,
Erik
--
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 853050] Review Request: hawtbuf - A rich byte buffer library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853050
--- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it ---
hi Erik,
i haven't intention to use the upstream taraball.
the %{name} in the Source0 field could add in a second time, but for now isnt
in my roadmap.
thanks
regards
--
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
