[Bug 962651] Re-Review Request: bamf - Application matching framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962651 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2014-02-27 10:25:10 -- 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://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 962651] Re-Review Request: bamf - Application matching framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962651 --- Comment #13 from Praveen Kumar --- Hi Salim, This package is really becoming a blocker for other gnome-pie bugs, can you please provide your input? -- 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://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 962651] Re-Review Request: bamf - Application matching framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962651 Praveen Kumar changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(michel+fdr@sylves ||tre.me) --- Comment #12 from Praveen Kumar --- Hi Salim, As per rel-eng ticket looks like it's unblocked, if this resolve your issue please close this bug or do needful. -- 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 962651] Re-Review Request: bamf - Application matching framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962651 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cicku...@gmail.com, ||michel+...@sylvestre.me Flags||needinfo?(michel+fdr@sylves ||tre.me) -- 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=kKvc2t7C8o&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 962651] Re-Review Request: bamf - Application matching framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962651 --- Comment #11 from Michel Alexandre Salim --- Thanks, requesting unblocking in the rel-eng trac https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5589 -- 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=nHgRRF6ZnG&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 962651] Re-Review Request: bamf - Application matching framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962651
Praveen Kumar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #10 from Praveen Kumar ---
Looks like below issue is fix now.
[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
[!]Package do not use a name that already exist
Note: A package already exist with this name, please check
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/bamf
See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names
But it's not a blocker since it is a re-review request after package drop.
Please update upstream about License issue and update spec accordingly.
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=zUlN8DsArp&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 962651] Re-Review Request: bamf - Application matching framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962651 --- Comment #9 from Michel Alexandre Salim --- Hi Praveen, Sorry for the delay, been busy with work. http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/gnome/bamf.spec http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/gnome/bamf-0.3.6-3.fc19.src.rpm As for the license, it looks like the current license tags are already accurate. As explained in the comment above the first license field, libbamf contains some files that are marked GPL, so the combination of those with LGPL files are effectively under the GPL, not LGPL. I'll file a bug upstream, but is that alright if we get the review done and I'll make the license update as soon as update fixes them? -- 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=MpAXJinyg8&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 962651] Re-Review Request: bamf - Application matching framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962651 --- Comment #8 from Praveen Kumar --- Hi Salim, Yes a updated SPEC and SRPM will be enough for this review, what is the progress on License issue? -- 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=Bzmxdzyjpc&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 962651] Re-Review Request: bamf - Application matching framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962651 Michel Alexandre Salim changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #7 from Michel Alexandre Salim --- Hi Praveen, I've fixed the other issues you pointed out, but the license situation is thornier than expected: - some files are GPLv2+ and GPLv3+, as you pointed out - all bamf-*.c files in src/ are GPLv3 *only* (without +) - some files in lib are GPLv2 or GPLv3 I *think* the v3-only code are out of the library, and everything in libbamf is either (LGPLv2+) or (LGPLv2 or LGPLv3), and either way, linking from GPL code to LGPL code should be fine anyway, but let me take a more thorough look at the files first - it's likely that the subpackages might end up with different license descriptions. An updated spec will suffice, I take it, as the requested changes only affects the packaging metadata? 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=XVAcXIc8up&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 962651] Re-Review Request: bamf - Application matching framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962651
Praveen Kumar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|kumarpraveen.nitdgp@gmail.c
||om
Flags|needinfo? |
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #6 from Praveen Kumar ---
Hi Michel,
I already did a formal review, is below issues resolved? As you said we don't
have to provide a major update for f18, just have to unblock it for dependent
applications. I assigned it to myself now.
Issues:
===
- Package do not use a name that already exist
Note: A package already exist with this name, please check
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/bamf
See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names
- Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
- Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
- License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
It should be v2+ and v3+.
GPL (v2 or later)
-
/var/lib/mock/fedora-17-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/bamf-0.3.6/lib/libbamf/bamf-application-private.h
/var/lib/mock/fedora-17-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/bamf-0.3.6/lib/libbamf/bamf-tab.c
/var/lib/mock/fedora-17-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/bamf-0.3.6/lib/libbamf/bamf-tab.h
/var/lib/mock/fedora-17-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/bamf-0.3.6/lib/libbamf/bamf-view-private.h
/var/lib/mock/fedora-17-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/bamf-0.3.6/ltmain.sh
GPL (v3 or later)
-
/var/lib/mock/fedora-17-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/bamf-0.3.6/tests/libbamf/test-libbamf.c
/var/lib/mock/fedora-17-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/bamf-0.3.6/tests/libbamf/test-matcher.c
--
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=kYcNk8KueR&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 962651] Re-Review Request: bamf - Application matching framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962651 Michel Alexandre Salim changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo? --- Comment #5 from Michel Alexandre Salim --- Hi both, bamf 0.3.6 requires Vala 0.20, which is why it does not build on F18. Do you want to just base the review on bamf 0.3.6? I won't do a major update on F18 as it's already released, and we don't want to break dependent apps (in this case gnome-pie), we just need to get bamf unblocked so we can actually build gnome-pie against it Could one of you do a formal review? 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=Lu5KqYK7WL&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 962651] Re-Review Request: bamf - Application matching framework
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962651 MartinKG changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mgans...@alice.de --- Comment #4 from MartinKG --- the package bamf-0.3.6-2 from https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/development/rawhide/source/SRPMS/b/bamf-0.3.6-2.fc20.src.rpm builds on f19 + f20 but not on f18. Koji scratch build (F19): http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5398119 -- 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=1h70qg8paU&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 962651] Re-Review Request: bamf - Application matching framework
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962651
--- Comment #3 from Praveen Kumar ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[-]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[-]: Package contains no static executables.
[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]: 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]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: 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.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in bamf-devel
, bamf-daemon
[x]: 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:
"GPL", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated",
"LGPL (v3 or later)", "GPL (v3)". 18 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/daredevil/962651-bamf/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[-]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
[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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 245760 bytes in 9 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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]: 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 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: No rpmlint messages.
= 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.
[ ]: 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]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[-]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English la
[Bug 962651] Re-Review Request: bamf - Application matching framework
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962651 --- Comment #2 from Praveen Kumar --- Hi Michel, Thanks for taking this package, I will do a formal review today. I am not changing "Assigned Flag" right now, will do it later. -- 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=FOczVQqG4X&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 962651] Re-Review Request: bamf - Application matching framework
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962651 Michel Alexandre Salim changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kumarpraveen.nitdgp@gmail.c ||om --- Comment #1 from Michel Alexandre Salim --- Hi Praveen, Please consider reviewing this - the release engineering team requires a re-review of Bamf before it can be unblocked, and we can't build gnome-pie on recent releases until that happens. Note that the SRPM here builds fine on F18 and below, but not on F19 and above due to deprecation warnings treated as errors. Will work on updating the code and upstreaming the patch once this goes in. -- 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=T4FSRtDmiF&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
