[Bug 859795] Review Request: sha - File hashing utility
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859795 --- Comment #32 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- sha-1.0.4b-2.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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=R0azRHYoo6a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 859795] Review Request: sha - File hashing utility
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859795 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed|2012-12-20 11:24:19 |2013-01-24 16:53:11 -- 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=dNHri5MYnra=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 859795] Review Request: sha - File hashing utility
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859795 --- Comment #33 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- sha-1.0.4b-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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=OINCKYMQvDa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 859795] Review Request: sha - File hashing utility
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859795 --- Comment #34 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- sha-1.0.4b-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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=QPM72fQfh9a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 859795] Review Request: sha - File hashing utility
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859795 --- Comment #31 from Guillermo Gómez guillermo.go...@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #23) This package should not have been approved. It is rude to install files with highly generic filenames, such as /usr/include/config.h /usr/include/version.h directly into /usr/include. At least a subdirectory could have been created. Thanks for the catch ! -- 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=DBo1FJChr2a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 859795] Review Request: sha - File hashing utility
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859795 --- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- sha-1.0.4b-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sha-1.0.4b-2.fc18 -- 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=KbaDjCbqJHa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 859795] Review Request: sha - File hashing utility
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859795 --- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- sha-1.0.4b-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sha-1.0.4b-2.fc17 -- 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=kWZVWGOIXAa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 859795] Review Request: sha - File hashing utility
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859795 --- Comment #29 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- sha-1.0.4b-2.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sha-1.0.4b-2.fc16 -- 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=oZknKWiGB1a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 859795] Review Request: sha - File hashing utility
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859795 --- Comment #30 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- Package sha-1.0.4b-2.fc18: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing sha-1.0.4b-2.fc18' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-20907/sha-1.0.4b-2.fc18 then log in and leave karma (feedback). -- 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=utLo1JqQDOa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 859795] Review Request: sha - File hashing utility
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859795 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA -- 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=uxsYXymUf6a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 859795] Review Request: sha - File hashing utility
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859795 --- Comment #24 from Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com --- I agree with Michael, so please change this package, create a subdir! -- 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=4X7hWiQVAna=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 859795] Review Request: sha - File hashing utility
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859795 Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED CC||mschwe...@gmail.com Resolution|ERRATA |--- Keywords||Reopened --- Comment #25 from Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com --- Have had to spend some time in the guidelines..., so reopening based upon: * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts#Potential_Conflicting_Files * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts#Header_Name_Conflicts -- 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=j7G2qEV86Ba=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 859795] Review Request: sha - File hashing utility
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859795 --- Comment #26 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #24) I agree with Michael, so please change this package, create a subdir! Thanks for the comment Matthias, I will (In reply to comment #25) Have had to spend some time in the guidelines..., so reopening based upon: * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging: Conflicts#Potential_Conflicting_Files * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts#Header_Name_Conflicts If I not answered immediately does not mean that I refuse to fixed this (Remember that we are very close to Christmas) so in the next days I'll be offering a solution for this package. -- 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=zKhuBC3y3ja=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 859795] Review Request: sha - File hashing utility
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859795 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-12-20 11:24:19 -- 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=B6G6lsb8fTa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 859795] Review Request: sha - File hashing utility
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859795 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- sha-1.0.4b-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. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=iQ7BQLUBg4a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 859795] Review Request: sha - File hashing utility
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859795 --- Comment #23 from Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com --- This package should not have been approved. It is rude to install files with highly generic filenames, such as /usr/include/config.h /usr/include/version.h directly into /usr/include. At least a subdirectory could have been created. -- 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=1o5uP8LDMSa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 859795] Review Request: sha - File hashing utility
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859795 --- Comment #19 from Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com --- (In reply to comment #18) In general, there's no we as we control and decide which kind of package comes in or not in Fedora. If there's anybody interested and needing it, and does the work, and its free sw, and it does comply with Fedora Packaging Guide Lines, any package is welcome. Hmm, but what about two packages a and b, b is a fork of a and both are providing nearly the same? What about, if a is really actively maintained, b just a project of one person? IMHO, we exactly have the situation here? I'm sharing Steve's concern; basically it's the same policy as the no-bundled-libs policy (even it's not named the same way, and here's nothing bundled at all, but this policy follows the original idea). @Steve: Do you have a suggestion, how to make duff https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=857639 work with our coreutils package? IMHO duff is the only package using this package sha. -- 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 859795] Review Request: sha - File hashing utility
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859795 --- Comment #20 from Steve Grubb sgr...@redhat.com --- We have other file duplication finding utils, like fdupes. I took a look in the code of duff and its simply using the sha package as a library rather than the standalone sha1sum utility from coreutils. Its trivial to move duff to use mhash or openssl, or libgcrypt. Not sure which is the best match for the zlib license. -- 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 859795] Review Request: sha - File hashing utility
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859795 --- Comment #21 from Guillermo Gómez guillermo.go...@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #19) (In reply to comment #18) In general, there's no we as we control and decide which kind of package comes in or not in Fedora. If there's anybody interested and needing it, and does the work, and its free sw, and it does comply with Fedora Packaging Guide Lines, any package is welcome. Hmm, but what about two packages a and b, b is a fork of a and both are providing nearly the same? Nearly means they are not providing exactly the same functionality. What about, if a is really actively maintained, b just a project of one person? Actively maintained is not a term mandated by the numbers of upstream contributors, it could be one maintainer or a large community. Certainly i prefer a large community behind it ;) but that's no reason to reject a package. I'm sharing Steve's concern; basically it's the same policy as the no-bundled-libs policy (even it's not named the same way, and here's nothing bundled at all, but this policy follows the original idea). hmm im not sure what exactly are yo trying to say here. no-bundled-libs policy is being respected here, sha is the result afaik. @Steve: Do you have a suggestion, how to make duff https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=857639 work with our coreutils package? IMHO duff is the only package using this package sha. Thats one good point, but that's up to upstream to do. :) -- 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 859795] Review Request: sha - File hashing utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859795 Steve Grubb sgr...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sgr...@redhat.com --- Comment #17 from Steve Grubb sgr...@redhat.com --- Why would we want more crypto? Coreutils provides sha256sum and friends. If we need it as API, libgcrypt provides it. More crypto packages is not a good thing. -- 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 859795] Review Request: sha - File hashing utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859795 --- Comment #18 from Guillermo Gómez guillermo.go...@gmail.com --- In general, there's no we as we control and decide which kind of package comes in or not in Fedora. If there's anybody interested and needing it, and does the work, and its free sw, and it does comply with Fedora Packaging Guide Lines, any package is welcome. -- 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 859795] Review Request: sha - File hashing utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859795 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- sha-1.0.4b-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 859795] Review Request: sha - File hashing utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859795 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA -- 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 859795] Review Request: sha - File hashing utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859795 Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #11 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com --- Thanks for the review Guillermo: New Package SCM Request === Package Name: sha Short Description: File hashing utility Owners: echevemaster Branches: f16 f17 f18 InitialCC: gomix -- 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 859795] Review Request: sha - File hashing utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859795 --- 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 859795] Review Request: sha - File hashing utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859795 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- sha-1.0.4b-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sha-1.0.4b-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 859795] Review Request: sha - File hashing utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859795 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 859795] Review Request: sha - File hashing utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859795 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- sha-1.0.4b-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sha-1.0.4b-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 859795] Review Request: sha - File hashing utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859795 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- sha-1.0.4b-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sha-1.0.4b-1.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 859795] Review Request: sha - File hashing utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859795 Guillermo Gómez guillermo.go...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #10 from Guillermo Gómez guillermo.go...@gmail.com --- :) nice job. 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 859795] Review Request: sha - File hashing utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859795 --- Comment #9 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com --- Hi Guillermo, I've talked with upstream and given me a tarball with separate license, here is the new specs and SRPM SPEC: http://echevemaster.fedorapeople.org/sha/5/sha.spec SRPMS: http://echevemaster.fedorapeople.org/sha/5/sha-1.0.4b-1.fc17.src.rpm with respect at the file ltmain.sh,It includes a text which reads: As a special exception to the GNU General Public License, if you distribute this file as part of a program or library that is built using GNU Libtool, you may include this file under the same distribution terms that you use for the rest of that program. I therefore I think not necessary to include GPLv2 at the tag license 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
[Bug 859795] Review Request: sha - File hashing utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859795 Guillermo Gómez guillermo.go...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added 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 859795] Review Request: sha - File hashing utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859795
--- Comment #8 from Guillermo Gómez guillermo.go...@gmail.com ---
I will only list pending issues (afaik):
= MUST items =
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses.
Licenses found:
BSD (2 clause), GPL (v2 or later), Unknown or generated.
3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/gomix/Fedpkg/fedora-review/859795-sha/licensecheck.txt
BSD (2 clause)
--
/var/lib/mock/fedora-17-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/sha-1.0.4a/sha256.c
GPL (v2 or later)
-
/var/lib/mock/fedora-17-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/sha-1.0.4a/ltmain.sh
Unknown or generated
/var/lib/mock/fedora-17-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/sha-1.0.4a/version.h
= SHOULD items =
[ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
All the above points regarding licencing should be addressed before approving.
I think a separate LICENSE file is the best solution. Some files have their own
headers which is perfectly ok, but some are not covered.
Please review [1] for more details on howto proceed.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
[!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
The %clean section is not required for F-13 and above.
Each package for F-12 and below (or EPEL 5) MUST have a %clean section, which
contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
Include %clean section only if you plan to release a EPEL5 version (not a
breaker).
I dont see any more issues with this package to approve it :) Please try to
address remaining issues, mainly licencing issues.
--
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 859795] Review Request: sha - File hashing utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859795 --- Comment #7 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com --- Guillermo, fixed the issues: SPEC: http://echevemaster.fedorapeople.org/sha/4/sha.spec SRPMS: http://echevemaster.fedorapeople.org/sha/4/sha-1.0.4a-4.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 859795] Review Request: sha - File hashing utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859795 Guillermo Gómez guillermo.go...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|guillermo.go...@gmail.com -- 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 859795] Review Request: sha - File hashing utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859795
Guillermo Gómez guillermo.go...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|guillermo.go...@gmail.com |nob...@fedoraproject.org
--- Comment #6 from Guillermo Gómez guillermo.go...@gmail.com ---
Please review ownership of files and directories.
Sample
%files
%{_mandir}/*/* claims ownership of /usr/share/man/man1 which is wrong.
--
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 859795] Review Request: sha - File hashing utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859795 --- Comment #5 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com --- I added the comment Guillermo: Spec URL: http://echevemaster.fedorapeople.org/sha/3/sha.spec SRPM URL: http://echevemaster.fedorapeople.org/sha/3/sha-1.0.4a-3.fc17.src.rpm Best 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
[Bug 859795] Review Request: sha - File hashing utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859795 Guillermo Gómez guillermo.go...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|guillermo.go...@gmail.com --- Comment #3 from Guillermo Gómez guillermo.go...@gmail.com --- I'll 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 859795] Review Request: sha - File hashing utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859795 --- Comment #4 from Guillermo Gómez guillermo.go...@gmail.com --- First comment for readers, i had a long talk with Eduardo in order to review the naming convention for this pkg since it fits the case of a post-release. Eduardo has to workaround with upstream for the naming convention for upcoming releases, then we will move on commenting in the spec about such agreement. -- 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 859795] Review Request: sha - File hashing utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859795 --- Comment #2 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com --- Hi Mario Thanks for your valuable comments, the corrected specs and SRPMS here: # Corrected RPMS Spec ## Spec URL: http://echevemaster.fedorapeople.org/sha/2/sha.spec SRPM URL: http://echevemaster.fedorapeople.org/sha/2/sha-1.0.4a-2.fc17.src.rpm rpmlint srpm rpmlint -v sha-1.0.4a-2.fc17.src.rpm sha.src: I: checking sha.src: I: checking-url http://hg.saddi.com/sha-asaddi (timeout 10 seconds) sha.src: I: checking-url http://www.saddi.com/software/sha/dist/sha-1.0.4a.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings rpmlint rpm ### rpmlint -v sha-1.0.4a-2.fc17.x86_64.rpm sha.x86_64: I: checking sha.x86_64: I: checking-url http://hg.saddi.com/sha-asaddi (timeout 10 seconds) 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Koji Build Rawhide http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4532147 Koji Build F18 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4532150 Koji Build f17 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4532153 Koji Build F16 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4532156 -- 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 859795] Review Request: sha - File hashing utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859795
Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co
||m
--- Comment #1 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com ---
There are versioned libraries in the -devel package:
%{_libdir}/*.so.*
Usually, they have to be in a -libs or *lib package while the versioned library
has to remain in the -devel package. If you don't want to provide an extra
package (you run ldconfig anyway for the main package), remove the versioned
libraries to the base package.
Moreover, %{name} = %{version}-%{release} has to be %{name}%{?_isa} =
%{version}-%{release} to match the correct architecture.
What are the *.c files in the -devel package for? As far as I can see, those
are no development examples, rather the source files of sha.
--
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 859795] Review Request: sha - File hashing utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859795 Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||857639 -- 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
