[Bug 961048] Review Request: codemod - A tool to assist with large codebase refactors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961048 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|codemod-1.0-1.20130508gitea |codemod-1.0-1.20130508gitea |c2165.fc18 |c2165.el6 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- codemod-1.0-1.20130508giteac2165.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. -- 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=MvsTETRW3t&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 961048] Review Request: codemod - A tool to assist with large codebase refactors
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961048 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||codemod-1.0-1.20130508gitea ||c2165.fc18 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2013-05-18 22:35:30 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- codemod-1.0-1.20130508giteac2165.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository. -- 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=Arv7xrLRiW&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 961048] Review Request: codemod - A tool to assist with large codebase refactors
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961048 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- codemod-1.0-1.20130508giteac2165.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. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=I5x9tD8zns&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 961048] Review Request: codemod - A tool to assist with large codebase refactors
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961048 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- codemod-1.0-1.20130508giteac2165.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/codemod-1.0-1.20130508giteac2165.el6 -- 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=2KYCA4feXQ&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 961048] Review Request: codemod - A tool to assist with large codebase refactors
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961048 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- codemod-1.0-1.20130508giteac2165.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/codemod-1.0-1.20130508giteac2165.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=ju3FuUXo6D&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 961048] Review Request: codemod - A tool to assist with large codebase refactors
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961048 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla --- 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=JlGJwshb7E&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 961048] Review Request: codemod - A tool to assist with large codebase refactors
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961048 Jon Ciesla 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=nfs4svinSU&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 961048] Review Request: codemod - A tool to assist with large codebase refactors
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961048 Ricky Elrod changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Ricky Elrod --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: codemod Short Description: A tool to assist with large codebase refactors Owners: codeblock Branches: el6 f18 f19 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=UrfKyfjr7z&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 961048] Review Request: codemod - A tool to assist with large codebase refactors
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961048
Ralph Bean changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||rb...@redhat.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rb...@redhat.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Ralph Bean ---
Package is APPROVED.
= 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.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: 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 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:
"Apache (v2.0)". Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/threebean/961048-codemod/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.
[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]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: 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]: 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]: 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).
= 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).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[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 timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[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]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of
