[Bug 955781] Review Request: datagrepper - A webapp to query fedmsg history
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=955781 Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2013-08-09 14:47:28 --- Comment #10 from Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com --- This update made it to stable and the ticket can be closed. https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/datagrepper -- 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=vPu9TBS1Dxa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 955781] Review Request: datagrepper - A webapp to query fedmsg history
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=955781 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=dNy7r5iHM9a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 955781] Review Request: datagrepper - A webapp to query fedmsg history
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=955781 --- Comment #9 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=8B8nD726qoa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 955781] Review Request: datagrepper - A webapp to query fedmsg history
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=955781 Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org --- Indeed, but you should use %python_version rather than %pyver But that's a detai easy to fix later, so let's say the package is approved. -- 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=9ZRwgxEWCCa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 955781] Review Request: datagrepper - A webapp to query fedmsg history
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=955781 --- Comment #7 from Ian Weller i...@ianweller.org --- Aha, wasn't aware that's what the macro was called. 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=HAq8zehTr6a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 955781] Review Request: datagrepper - A webapp to query fedmsg history
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=955781 Ian Weller i...@ianweller.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Ian Weller i...@ianweller.org --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: datagrepper Short Description: A webapp to query fedmsg history Owners: ianweller ralph Branches: el6 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=cjxxgAEQ2Ma=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 955781] Review Request: datagrepper - A webapp to query fedmsg history
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=955781 Ian Weller iwel...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||iwel...@redhat.com --- Comment #5 from Ian Weller iwel...@redhat.com --- (In reply to comment #2) - no need for macro pyver and python_sitelib since that's supported on RHEL6 as far as I can tell nothing defines %pyver so I left it in. * Fri May 03 2013 Ian Weller iwel...@redhat.com - 0.1.1-1 - Update to upstream 0.1.1 (adds license text) - Fix python2-devel BR - Mark config file as noreplace - Remove useradd commands in post - Install sample httpd configuration file - Add version to requires on datanommer.models - Remove python_sitelib macro definition Spec: http://ianweller.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/datagrepper/0.1.1-1/datagrepper.spec SRPM: http://ianweller.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/datagrepper/0.1.1-1/datagrepper-0.1.1-1.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=wAQh3dtA8Xa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 955781] Review Request: datagrepper - A webapp to query fedmsg history
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=955781 Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@zarb.org --- Comment #1 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org --- Hi, python policy requires to be explicit on python version for -devel ( ie python2-devel, or python3-devel ) -- 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=jnQmggQC32a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 955781] Review Request: datagrepper - A webapp to query fedmsg history
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=955781
Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@zarb.org
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[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
- Config file not marked as noreplace
- missing License in tarball, should be asked upstream
- why does it have his own user created in %post ?
- no need for macro pyver and python_sitelib since that's supported on RHEL6
= 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.
[!]: 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:
Unknown or generated. 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in
/home/misc/checkout/git/FedoraReview/955781-datagrepper/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
Note: No (noreplace) in %config /etc/datagrepper/
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (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]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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]: 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
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:
[!]: 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
[Bug 955781] Review Request: datagrepper - A webapp to query fedmsg history
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=955781 --- Comment #3 from Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com --- In response to one of the comments: - why does it have his own user created in %post ? This is so that mod_wsgi can run processes as this user. This is for separation for security, so that if one mod_wsgi process is compromised, it cannot as easily access data available to other web applications on the same server. The other comments look correct and should be easy to fix in a second review release. -- 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=O9H9i52puRa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 955781] Review Request: datagrepper - A webapp to query fedmsg history
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=955781 --- Comment #4 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org --- But there is no apache configuration to take care of this, so I do not think that's up to the package to do it ( at least, no to do half of the work for 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=8rFpuCbOuaa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
