[Bug 913605] Review Request: NFStest - NFS Testing Tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913605

Lorenzo Dalrio  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE
Last Closed||2016-08-16 10:55:17



-- 
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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 913605] Review Request: NFStest - NFS Testing Tool

[bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913605

Steve Dickson ste...@redhat.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-cvs?

--- Comment #13 from Steve Dickson ste...@redhat.com ---
New Package SCM Request
===
Package Name: NFStest
Short Description: NFS Testing Suite
Owners: ste...@redhat.com
Branches: f19 f20
InitialCC:

-- 
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=6zPiBdSdxda=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 913605] Review Request: NFStest - NFS Testing Tool

[bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913605

--- Comment #14 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com ---
WARNING: ste...@redhat.com is not a valid FAS account.
WARNING: Invalid branch f20 requested

-- 
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=LGF2JxTUz0a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 913605] Review Request: NFStest - NFS Testing Tool

[bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913605

--- Comment #15 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com ---
WARNING: ste...@redhat.com is not a valid FAS account.
WARNING: Invalid branch f20 requested

-- 
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=hOrWuDMI4fa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 913605] Review Request: NFStest - NFS Testing Tool

[bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913605

Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-cvs? |

-- 
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=BNQlqMNwvWa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 913605] Review Request: NFStest - NFS Testing Tool

[bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913605

--- Comment #16 from Steve Dickson ste...@redhat.com ---
(In reply to comment #14)
 WARNING: ste...@redhat.com is not a valid FAS account.
 WARNING: Invalid branch f20 requested

Sorry about that

-- 
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=79SBRGR1nqa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 913605] Review Request: NFStest - NFS Testing Tool

[bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913605

Steve Dickson ste...@redhat.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
  Flags||fedora-cvs?

--- Comment #17 from Steve Dickson ste...@redhat.com ---
New Package SCM Request
===
Package Name: NFStest
Short Description: NFS Testing Suite
Owners: steved
Branches: f19 f20
InitialCC:

-- 
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=JpzubSGStUa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 913605] Review Request: NFStest - NFS Testing Tool

[bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913605

Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-cvs? |
  Flags||fedora-cvs+

-- 
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=xo88CIBNHDa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 913605] Review Request: NFStest - NFS Testing Tool

[bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913605

--- Comment #18 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=6CsrCWb9XNa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 913605] Review Request: NFStest - NFS Testing Tool

[bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913605

--- Comment #8 from Lorenzo Dalrio lorenzo.dal...@gmail.com ---
Steve, please correct changelog entry as it is not in the prescribed format.

These are the lines in wrong format:

 Mon Mar 18 12:25:46 EDT 2013
 - Added required BuildRequires

Once you do this, package will be good to go. :)


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 contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[!]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: 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.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
 GPL (v2 or later), Unknown or generated. 2 files have unknown
 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/lorenzodalrio/workspace/reviews/NFStest/review-
 NFStest/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[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]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
 Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
 are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm  4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[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]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
 in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
 supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).

Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
 provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: 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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the 

[Bug 913605] Review Request: NFStest - NFS Testing Tool

[bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913605

--- Comment #9 from Steve Dickson ste...@redhat.com ---
(In reply to comment #8)
 Steve, please correct changelog entry as it is not in the prescribed format.
 
 These are the lines in wrong format:
 
  Mon Mar 18 12:25:46 EDT 2013
  - Added required BuildRequires
 
Done!

Updated: http://steved.fedorapeople.org/NFStest/NFStest.spec

-- 
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=dEvgidg1Qja=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 913605] Review Request: NFStest - NFS Testing Tool

[bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913605

--- Comment #10 from Lorenzo Dalrio lorenzo.dal...@gmail.com ---
Would you mind to refresh srpm too? :) Thanks!

-- 
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=w7s5nsjqvda=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 913605] Review Request: NFStest - NFS Testing Tool

[bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913605

--- Comment #11 from Steve Dickson ste...@redhat.com ---
(In reply to comment #10)
 Would you mind to refresh srpm too? :) Thanks!

Sorry about that... 

Updated: http://steved.fedorapeople.org/NFStest/NFStest-1.0.1-1.fc18.src.rpm

-- 
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=X0rx8HH14Ra=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 913605] Review Request: NFStest - NFS Testing Tool

[bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913605

Lorenzo Dalrio lorenzo.dal...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |
  Flags||fedora-review+

--- Comment #12 from Lorenzo Dalrio lorenzo.dal...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to comment #11)
 Sorry about that... 

No problem!


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 contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: 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.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
 GPL (v2 or later), Unknown or generated. 2 files have unknown
 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/lorenzodalrio/workspace/reviews/NFStest/review-
 NFStest/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[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]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
 Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
 are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm  4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[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]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
 in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
 supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).

Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
 provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: 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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve 

[Bug 913605] Review Request: NFStest - NFS Testing Tool

[bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913605

Lorenzo Dalrio lorenzo.dal...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(lorenzo.dalrio@gm |
   |ail.com)|

--- Comment #5 from Lorenzo Dalrio lorenzo.dal...@gmail.com ---
Steve,
i get a 403 error on downloading new spec and srpm, please can you fix it?

-- 
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=KA6Oo20RUqa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 913605] Review Request: NFStest - NFS Testing Tool

[bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913605

--- Comment #6 from Steve Dickson ste...@redhat.com ---
(In reply to comment #5)
 Steve,
 i get a 403 error on downloading new spec and srpm, please can you fix it?

Its an selinux problem its happen before... 

$ ls -lZ
drwxr-xr-x. steved steved unconfined_u:object_r:httpd_user_content_t:s0 ./
drwxrwxr-x. steved steved unconfined_u:object_r:httpd_user_content_t:s0 ../
drwxr-xr-x. steved steved unconfined_u:object_r:httpd_user_content_t:s0
1.0.1-0/
-rw-r--r--. steved steved unconfined_u:object_r:user_tmp_t:s0
NFStest-1.0.1-1.fc18.src.rpm
-rw-r--r--. steved steved unconfined_u:object_r:user_tmp_t:s0 NFStest.spec

For you to access them I have to change user_tmp_t to httpd_user_content_t
and I forget how to do that... but I'm looking into it.. 

But for know please grab them from my other people page
http://people.redhat.com/steved/NFStest/

-- 
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=3vMz4bTfOka=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 913605] Review Request: NFStest - NFS Testing Tool

[bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913605

--- Comment #7 from Steve Dickson ste...@redhat.com ---
(In reply to comment #5)
 Steve,
 i get a 403 error on downloading new spec and srpm, please can you fix it?

You should be good to go on either people pages.

-- 
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=6zsboDQp3oa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 913605] Review Request: NFStest - NFS Testing Tool

[bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913605

Steve Dickson ste...@redhat.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||needinfo?(lorenzo.dalrio@gm
   ||ail.com)

--- Comment #4 from Steve Dickson ste...@redhat.com ---
(In reply to comment #0)
 Spec URL: http://steved.fedorapeople.org/NFStest/NFStest.spec
Updated: http://steved.fedorapeople.org/NFStest/NFStest.spec

 SRPM URL: http://steved.fedorapeople.org/NFStest/NFStest-1.0.1-0.fc18.src.rpm
Updated: http://steved.fedorapeople.org/NFStest/NFStest-1.0.1-1.fc18.src.rpm

-- 
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=fUSL1C19qpa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 913605] Review Request: NFStest - NFS Testing Tool

[bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913605

Lorenzo Dalrio lorenzo.dal...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||lorenzo.dal...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lorenzo.dal...@gmail.com
  Flags|needinfo?   |
  Flags||fedora-review?

--- Comment #2 from Lorenzo Dalrio lorenzo.dal...@gmail.com ---
I will review your 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=piwO7m8uNra=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 913605] Review Request: NFStest - NFS Testing Tool

[bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913605

--- Comment #3 from Lorenzo Dalrio lorenzo.dal...@gmail.com ---
Hi Steve,

your package is almost ok, please add BuildRequire: python-devel
to meet python packaging guidelines. [1]

Full review follows.

[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires


Package Review
==

Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
===
- Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires


= 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 contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: 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.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
 GPL (v2 or later), Unknown or generated. 2 files have unknown
 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in

/home/lorenzodalrio/workspace/reviews/NFStest/913605-NFStest/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[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]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
 Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
 are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm  4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[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]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
 in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
 supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).

Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
 provide egg info.
[!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI 

[Bug 913605] Review Request: NFStest - NFS Testing Tool

[bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913605

Steve Dickson ste...@redhat.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||needinfo?

--- Comment #1 from Steve Dickson ste...@redhat.com ---
Ping... any movement on this?

-- 
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=O0rE0uAD8ma=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review