[Bug 853686] Review Request: erlang-bear - A set of statistics functions for erlang

2012-09-21 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853686

--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
erlang-bear-0.1.1-1.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 853686] Review Request: erlang-bear - A set of statistics functions for erlang

2012-09-17 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853686

--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
erlang-bear-0.1.1-1.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 853686] Review Request: erlang-bear - A set of statistics functions for erlang

2012-09-17 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853686

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2012-09-17 13:41:22

--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
erlang-bear-0.1.1-1.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 853686] Review Request: erlang-bear - A set of statistics functions for erlang

2012-09-03 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853686

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA

--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
erlang-bear-0.1.1-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 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 853686] Review Request: erlang-bear - A set of statistics functions for erlang

2012-09-03 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853686

--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
erlang-bear-0.1.1-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/erlang-bear-0.1.1-1.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 853686] Review Request: erlang-bear - A set of statistics functions for erlang

2012-09-03 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853686

--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
erlang-bear-0.1.1-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/erlang-bear-0.1.1-1.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 853686] Review Request: erlang-bear - A set of statistics functions for erlang

2012-09-03 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853686

--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
erlang-bear-0.1.1-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/erlang-bear-0.1.1-1.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 853686] Review Request: erlang-bear - A set of statistics functions for erlang

2012-09-03 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853686

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |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 853686] Review Request: erlang-bear - A set of statistics functions for erlang

2012-09-03 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853686

--- Comment #3 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 853686] Review Request: erlang-bear - A set of statistics functions for erlang

2012-09-02 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853686

Peter Lemenkov  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-cvs?

--- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov  ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> No issues besides the timestamp one with install, but that's not blocking,
> so package is approved.

Thanks, Michael!

New Package SCM Request
===
Package Name: erlang-bear
Short Description: A set of statistics functions for Erlang
Owners: peter
Branches: f17 f18 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 853686] Review Request: erlang-bear - A set of statistics functions for erlang

2012-09-02 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853686

Michael Scherer  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||m...@zarb.org
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@zarb.org
  Flags||fedora-review+

--- Comment #1 from Michael Scherer  ---
No issues besides the timestamp one with install, but that's not blocking, so
package is approved.


Package Review
==

Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated


Issues:
===
[!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.


= 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.
[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]: 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.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
 Note: Documentation size is 20480 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 include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
 Note: Package co

[Bug 853686] Review Request: erlang-bear - A set of statistics functions for erlang

2012-09-01 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853686

Peter Lemenkov  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||853687

-- 
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 853686] Review Request: erlang-bear - A set of statistics functions for erlang

2012-09-01 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853686

Peter Lemenkov  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||849603

-- 
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