[Bug 865691] Review Request: laditools - a collection of linux audio tools
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865691 Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-11-18 23:27:56 -- 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 865691] Review Request: laditools - a collection of linux audio tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865691 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 865691] Review Request: laditools - a collection of linux audio tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865691 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- laditools-1.0.1-5.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/laditools-1.0.1-5.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 865691] Review Request: laditools - a collection of linux audio tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865691 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- laditools-1.0.1-5.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/laditools-1.0.1-5.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 865691] Review Request: laditools - a collection of linux audio tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865691 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 865691] Review Request: laditools - a collection of linux audio tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865691 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- laditools-1.0.1-5.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 865691] Review Request: laditools - a collection of linux audio tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865691 --- Comment #2 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com --- Thanks Eduardo, added missing BR's and requires. Left the patch for simplicity at this point, but thanks for the tip. SPEC: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/laditools.spec SRPM: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/laditools-1.0.1-3.fc18.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 865691] Review Request: laditools - a collection of linux audio tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865691 --- Comment #3 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com --- I'm Sorry, I didn't see the last time, please add BR's python2-devel -- 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 865691] Review Request: laditools - a collection of linux audio tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865691 --- Comment #4 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com --- python2-devel is implicit in the build root. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4588720 -- 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 865691] Review Request: laditools - a collection of linux audio tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865691 --- Comment #5 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com --- I know, but guidelines are guidelines, but any package generated with python must contain the correct python version in use http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires -- 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 865691] Review Request: laditools - a collection of linux audio tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865691 --- Comment #6 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com --- OK, added. SPEC: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/laditools.spec SRPM: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/laditools-1.0.1-4.fc18.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 865691] Review Request: laditools - a collection of linux audio tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865691
Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|echevemas...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #7 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com ---
Koji Build Rawhide
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4588734
Koji Build F18
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4588736
Koji Build F17
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4588738
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= 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.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install if there is
such a file.
[-]: 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.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
GPL (v3 or later). 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/makerpm/laditools/865691-laditools/licensecheck.txt
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[ ]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
[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.
[x]: 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]: 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.
Python:
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: 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
[Bug 865691] Review Request: laditools - a collection of linux audio tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865691 --- Comment #8 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com --- Thanks so much for the review! Removed MIT license - not sure what I was thinking (probably copied in by mistake from my template) SPEC: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/laditools.spec SRPM: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/laditools-1.0.1-5.fc18.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 865691] Review Request: laditools - a collection of linux audio tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865691
Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #9 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com ---
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= 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.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install if there is
such a file.
[-]: 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.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
GPL (v3 or later). 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in
/home/makerpm/laditools2/865691-laditools/licensecheck.txt
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[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.
[x]: 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]: 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.
Python:
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: 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]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[!]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
Note: Source0 (laditools-1.0.1.tar.bz2)
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the
[Bug 865691] Review Request: laditools - a collection of linux audio tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865691 Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com --- Thanks again for the review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: laditools Short Description: A collection of Linux audio tools Owners: bsjones Branches:f16 f17 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 865691] Review Request: laditools - a collection of linux audio tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865691 --- Comment #11 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 865691] Review Request: laditools - a collection of linux audio tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865691
Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||echevemas...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com ---
Hi Brendan:
your package also requires this dependencies
BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils
Requires: python-enum
In my opinion, though your form too is correct, I would do this with shebangs:
for file in `find %{buildroot}/%{python_sitelib}/%{name} -type f ! -perm /a+x`;
do
[ ! -z `head -n 1 $file | grep \^#!/\` ] chmod 0755 $file
done
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 865691] Review Request: laditools - a collection of linux audio tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865691 Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||865699 -- 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 865691] Review Request: laditools - a collection of linux audio tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865691 Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||805236 (FedoraAudio) -- 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
