[Bug 874689] Review Request: libuv - Platform layer for node.js
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=874689 Benson Muite changed: What|Removed |Added CC||benson_mu...@emailplus.org --- Comment #16 from Benson Muite --- *** Bug 2240443 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=874689 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%20874689%23c16 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 874689] Review Request: libuv - Platform layer for node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=874689 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |ERRATA -- 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=x6v6CdKhuma=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 874689] Review Request: libuv - Platform layer for node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=874689 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- v8-3.14.5.8-1.fc18, nodejs-0.10.2-1.fc18, libuv-0.10.3-1.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=bafH6NXJ1Ra=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 874689] Review Request: libuv - Platform layer for node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=874689 Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ | Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #12 from Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: libuv New Branches: el6 Owners: sgallagh InitialCC: I'm working with Node.JS upstream to enable its use on systems with a slightly older openssl version to support EPEL 6. With that in mind, we're going to need to build libuv on EPEL 6 as well. -- 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=H9JSWRBbn8a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 874689] Review Request: libuv - Platform layer for node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=874689 --- Comment #13 from Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: libuv New Branches: el6 Owners: sgallagh patches InitialCC: Correcting the request -- 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=Ud1rPq40yma=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 874689] Review Request: libuv - Platform layer for node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=874689 --- 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. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=b9O8aMDBtja=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 874689] Review Request: libuv - Platform layer for node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=874689 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-0.9.3-7.fc18,libuv-0.9.3-0.3.git09b0222.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-0.9.3-7.fc18,libuv-0.9.3-0.3.git09b0222.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=UmzW76hJGea=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 874689] Review Request: libuv - Platform layer for node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=874689 --- Comment #9 from Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com --- I don't have plans for F17 or EPEL 6 at this time. The reason for this is that libuv is pretty much only usable with Node.js at this time. The Node.js package undergoing review requires OpenSSL 1.0.1 or later, which is presently only available on F18+. If you have a use for libuv other than with Node.js, let me know. There's nothing preventing me building it on F17 and EPEL 6 technically, but I don't really want to support it there unless it's being used. -- 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 874689] Review Request: libuv - Platform layer for node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=874689 --- Comment #10 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com --- I'm looking at it for julia, but since julia also requires bleeding edge suitesparse which is only in rawhide, I'm fine with libuv not being elsewhere yet. -- 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 874689] Review Request: libuv - Platform layer for node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=874689 Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||or...@cora.nwra.com --- Comment #7 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com --- Can we get updates for f17 and f18 please? 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 874689] Review Request: libuv - Platform layer for node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=874689 --- Comment #8 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com --- Also, this builds on el6 and would be nice to have there. -- 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 874689] Review Request: libuv - Platform layer for node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=874689 Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-11-19 14:00:41 -- 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 874689] Review Request: libuv - Platform layer for node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=874689 Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: libuv Short Description: Platform layer for node.js Owners: sgallagh Branches: f18 f17 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 874689] Review Request: libuv - Platform layer for node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=874689 --- Comment #6 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 874689] Review Request: libuv - Platform layer for node.js
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=874689 Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(mru...@redhat.com ||) --- Comment #3 from Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com --- Thanks for the review. As of today, https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/231 was approved for a bundling exception. I've also corrected the doubly-listed directory and uploaded a new version of the package with updated upstream sources: Spec: http://sgallagh.fedorapeople.org/packagereview/libuv/libuv.spec SRPM: http://sgallagh.fedorapeople.org/packagereview/libuv/libuv-0.9.3-0.2.git09b0222.fc18.src.rpm Built in Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4688672 -- 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 874689] Review Request: libuv - Platform layer for node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=874689 Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags|needinfo?(mru...@redhat.com | |) | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com --- Great news, last time I checked for the exception was two days ago. All issues fixed, this package is 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 874689] Review Request: libuv - Platform layer for node.js
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=874689
--- Comment #2 from Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com ---
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
[!]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/include/uv-private
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[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.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
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.
[!]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
Excheption request here:
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/231
[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.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[!]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/include/uv-private
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[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:
MIT/X11 (BSD like), ISC, Unknown or generated, BSD (2 clause). 4
files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/mrunge/review/874689-libuv/licensecheck.txt
[x]: 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]: 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]: 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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 6 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
[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).
[?]:
[Bug 874689] Review Request: libuv - Platform layer for node.js
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=874689 Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||815018 -- 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 874689] Review Request: libuv - Platform layer for node.js
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=874689 Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mru...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mru...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com --- I can do the 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
