[Bug 462309] Review Request: publican-ovirt - Common documentation files for oVirt
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=462309 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-20 16:26:17 EDT --- publican-ovirt-0.4-3.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 462309] Review Request: publican-ovirt - Common documentation files for oVirt
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=462309 Fedora Update System [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 462309] Review Request: publican-ovirt - Common documentation files for oVirt
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=462309 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-16 04:14:13 EDT --- publican-ovirt-0.4-3.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/publican-ovirt-0.4-3.fc9 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 462309] Review Request: publican-ovirt - Common documentation files for oVirt
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=462309 Toshio Ernie Kuratomi [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #11 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-15 12:58:18 EDT --- cvs done. Note: tsagadai was added to the CC list only. tsagadai must be in the packager group before he can be a comaintainer on the package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 462309] Review Request: publican-ovirt - Common documentation files for oVirt
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=462309 Alan Pevec [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #9 from Alan Pevec [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-13 04:02:00 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: publican-ovirt Short Description: Common documentation files for oVirt Owners: apevec tsagadai Branches: F-9 EPEL InitialCC: jfearn -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 462309] Review Request: publican-ovirt - Common documentation files for oVirt
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=462309 --- Comment #10 from Alan Pevec [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-13 04:11:51 EDT --- Package Change Request == Package Name: publican-ovirt New Branches: Branches: F-9 EL-5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 462309] Review Request: publican-ovirt - Common documentation files for oVirt
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=462309 Jens Petersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Jens Petersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-12 19:25:31 EDT --- 8e60459257b6ec5d43ad34b5cd330a8f publican-ovirt-0.4.tgz Thanks - looks good now. Package is APPROVED for inclusion in Fedora. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 462309] Review Request: publican-ovirt - Common documentation files for oVirt
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=462309 --- Comment #5 from Alan Pevec [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-03 12:08:16 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) Please bump the upstream version (eg to 0.4.1 or 0.5) when changing the tarball to avoid confusion. There will be no confusion, this RPM wasn't released yet, so IMHO I just need to take official 0.4 source tarball. The difference is only uids and timestamps, b/c for uploaded RPM I did make dist in svn repo myself. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 462309] Review Request: publican-ovirt - Common documentation files for oVirt
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=462309 --- Comment #6 from Alan Pevec [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-03 12:57:05 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) Suggestions:- 1)Source failed to verify with upstream URL 8e60459257b6ec5d43ad34b5cd330a8f publican-ovirt-0.4.tgz (from upstream URL) 2c02784aa82bb23498d9b8f07654ab1d publican-ovirt-0.4.tgz (from SRPM) Re upload SRPM with correct source tarball. when I did initial SRPM, upstream tarball was not uploaded yet, so I ran make dist in svn myself, actual diff is uids and timestamps only 2) from Packaging Guidelines, consider preserving timestamps http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Timestamps considerd, note there are files generated during the build which will have build-time timestamps 3) good if you use defattr usage as %defattr(-,root,root,-) changed, although %defattr(-,root,root) is semantically the same -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 462309] Review Request: publican-ovirt - Common documentation files for oVirt
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=462309 --- Comment #7 from Alan Pevec [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-03 13:34:57 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) [-] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, [=] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. updated spec and SRPM: Spec URL: http://apevec.fedorapeople.org/publican-ovirt.spec SRPM URL: http://apevec.fedorapeople.org/publican-ovirt-0.4-3.fc10.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 462309] Review Request: publican-ovirt - Common documentation files for oVirt
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=462309 --- Comment #1 from Alan Pevec [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-02 06:02:49 EDT --- upstream release to https://fedorahosted.org/releases/p/u/publican/ in progress done in the meantime: http://fedorahosted.org/releases/p/u/publican/publican-ovirt-0.4.tgz -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 462309] Review Request: publican-ovirt - Common documentation files for oVirt
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=462309 Parag AN(पराग) [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Comment #2 from Parag AN(पराग) [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-03 00:16:02 EDT --- Suggestions:- 1)Source failed to verify with upstream URL 8e60459257b6ec5d43ad34b5cd330a8f publican-ovirt-0.4.tgz (from upstream URL) 2c02784aa82bb23498d9b8f07654ab1d publican-ovirt-0.4.tgz (from SRPM) Re upload SRPM with correct source tarball. 2) from Packaging Guidelines, consider preserving timestamps http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Timestamps 3) good if you use defattr usage as %defattr(-,root,root,-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 462309] Review Request: publican-ovirt - Common documentation files for oVirt
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=462309 --- Comment #3 from Jens Petersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-03 00:48:21 EDT --- Please bump the upstream version (eg to 0.4.1 or 0.5) when changing the tarball to avoid confusion. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 462309] Review Request: publican-ovirt - Common documentation files for oVirt
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=462309
Jens Petersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #4 from Jens Petersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-03 01:15:30 EDT
---
Here is the review:
+:ok, =:needs attention, -:needs fixing
MUST Items:
[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
Open Publication
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+] MUST: 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 must be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[-] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task.
please see above comments
[+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one supported architecture.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory.
[+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
[=] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
see above: (-,root,root,-) is preferred
[+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines.
(it wouldn't hurt to add a macro say %publicandir for %{_datadir}/publican
though maybe would probably come first in the other publican packages)
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
SHOULD Items:
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Please fix the earlier mentioned points and I think the package can be
approved.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 462309] Review Request: publican-ovirt - Common documentation files for oVirt
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=462309 Jens Petersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 462309] Review Request: publican-ovirt - Common documentation files for oVirt
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=462309 Alan Pevec [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
