[Bug 952354] Review Request: ovirt-log-collector - Log Collector tool for oVirt Engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=952354 Björn besser82 Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- 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 952354] Review Request: ovirt-log-collector - Log Collector tool for oVirt Engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=952354 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cicku...@gmail.com --- Comment #6 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- Why WONTFIX? -- 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=zPRUejkflTa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 952354] Review Request: ovirt-log-collector - Log Collector tool for oVirt Engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=952354 Kiril Nesenko knese...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Last Closed||2013-07-02 02:29:08 -- 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=MiN7gGFpC4a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 952354] Review Request: ovirt-log-collector - Log Collector tool for oVirt Engine
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=952354
Vasant Hegde hegdevas...@in.ibm.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hegdevas...@in.ibm.com
--- Comment #3 from Vasant Hegde hegdevas...@in.ibm.com ---
Package review output:
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Apache (v2.0), GPL, LGPL (v2.1 or later), LGPL, Unknown or
generated. 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck
in /data/opensource/powerpack/git/fedora-scm/952354/review-ovirt-log-
collector/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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]: No %config files under /usr.
[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:
[ ]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[ ]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[ ]: 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:
[!]: Buildroot is not present
Note: Invalid buildroot found: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}
[ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: 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
[Bug 952354] Review Request: ovirt-log-collector - Log Collector tool for oVirt Engine
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=952354
--- Comment #4 from Vasant Hegde hegdevas...@in.ibm.com ---
Few more comments:
- License statement is not required in spec file.
- 'package_version' and 'package_name' are not really needed. They only
duplicate %{name} and {version}.
- BuildRoot is obselete
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
- The timestamps are not preserved in the %install section.
- 'rm -rf %{buildroot}' is not required.
- %changelog : requires description of changes
The package is named 'ovirt-log-collector', the binary 'engine-log-collector',
the manpage 'engine-log-collector.8.gz', and the configuration file
'logcollector.conf'. IMO consistent naming schema helps ot identify compoenents
which belong together.
-Vasant
--
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=dqXNlAK3z2a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 952354] Review Request: ovirt-log-collector - Log Collector tool for oVirt Engine
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=952354 Karsten Hopp kars...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kars...@redhat.com --- Comment #5 from Karsten Hopp kars...@redhat.com --- [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ovirt_log_collector/ -- 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=GmJ4ivL4Bha=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 952354] Review Request: ovirt-log-collector - Log Collector tool for oVirt Engine
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=952354 --- Comment #2 from Kiril Nesenko knese...@redhat.com --- Spec URL: http://knesenko.fedorapeople.org/ovirt-log-collector.spec SRPM URL: http://knesenko.fedorapeople.org/ovirt-log-collector-3.2.2-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: Log Collector tool for oVirt Engine Fedora Account System Username: knesenko -- 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=fRdT2sIvzNa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 952354] Review Request: ovirt-log-collector - Log Collector tool for oVirt Engine
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=952354 --- Comment #1 from Kiril Nesenko knese...@redhat.com --- Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5258194 -- 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=wVC8Cx6J6ya=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 952354] Review Request: ovirt-log-collector - Log Collector tool for oVirt Engine
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=952354 Kiril Nesenko knese...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- 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=HzppJCqwkya=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
