[Bug 485007] Review Request: rhnpush - Package uploader for the RHN Satellite/Spacewalk Server
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=485007 Miroslav Suchy msu...@redhat.com 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 485007] Review Request: rhnpush - Package uploader for the RHN Satellite/Spacewalk Server
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=485007 Marcela Maslanova mmasl...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||CURRENTRELEASE -- 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 485007] Review Request: rhnpush - Package uploader for the RHN Satellite/Spacewalk Server
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=485007 Miroslav Suchy msu...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||Reopened Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Resolution|CURRENTRELEASE | Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? -- 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 485007] Review Request: rhnpush - Package uploader for the RHN Satellite/Spacewalk Server
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=485007 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #12 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-02-26 19:20:42 EDT --- cvs done. -- 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 485007] Review Request: rhnpush - Package uploader for the RHN Satellite/Spacewalk Server
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=485007 Miroslav Suchy msu...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||msu...@redhat.com --- Comment #7 from Miroslav Suchy msu...@redhat.com 2009-02-20 08:03:52 EDT --- Michael if you do not mind (and I know you will not :) ) I will take ownership of this package. I really want to thanx you for all the job you are doing. I applied your changes to our git repo. I packed latest version. And make sure the tar.gz landed in fedorahosted.org/releases/ *Test - the test are long time abandoned and definitelly do not work. We keep it there if anybody want to fix it as it is better then just deleting it forever. UPDATED SPEC: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/rhnpush/rhnpush.spec SRPM: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/rhnpush/rhnpush-0.4.3-1.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 485007] Review Request: rhnpush - Package uploader for the RHN Satellite/Spacewalk Server
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=485007
--- Comment #8 from Marcela Maslanova mmasl...@redhat.com 2009-02-20
08:22:59 EDT ---
OK source files match upstream 3b53e8a569b7e486634482216410669d
OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
OK dist tag is present.
OK build root is correct.
OK license field (GPLv2) matches the actual license.
OK license is open source-compatible. License text not included upstream.
OK latest version is being packaged.
OK BuildRequires are proper.
OK %clean is present.
OK package builds in mock (Rawhide/x86_64).
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1142201
OK debuginfo package isn't need.
OK rpmlint is silent.
OK final provides and requires look sane.
OK no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
OK owns the directories it creates.
OK no duplicates in %files.
OK file permissions are appropriate.
OK no scriptlets present.
OK code, not content.
OK documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
OK no headers.
OK no pkgconfig files.
OK no libtool .la droppings.
What about BR? Is there reason for using %{_bindir}/msgfmt instead of gettext
and %{_bindir}/docbook2man instead of docbook-utils?
--
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 485007] Review Request: rhnpush - Package uploader for the RHN Satellite/Spacewalk Server
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=485007 --- Comment #9 from Miroslav Suchy msu...@redhat.com 2009-02-20 08:46:57 EDT --- Hmm, actually there is no reason. And yes, package dependence should be prefered rather then file dependence. UPDATED SPEC: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/rhnpush/rhnpush.spec SRPM: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/rhnpush/rhnpush-0.4.4-1.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 485007] Review Request: rhnpush - Package uploader for the RHN Satellite/Spacewalk Server
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=485007 Marcela Maslanova mmasl...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #10 from Marcela Maslanova mmasl...@redhat.com 2009-02-20 08:56:50 EDT --- ACCEPTED -- 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 485007] Review Request: rhnpush - Package uploader for the RHN Satellite/Spacewalk Server
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=485007 Miroslav Suchy msu...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #11 from Miroslav Suchy msu...@redhat.com 2009-02-20 09:14:45 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: rhnpush Short Description: Package uploader for the RHN Satellite/Spacewalk Server Owners: msuchy Branches: F-10, EL-4, EL-5 InitialCC: stahnma -- 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 485007] Review Request: rhnpush - Package uploader for the RHN Satellite/Spacewalk Server
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=485007 Miroslav Suchy msu...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||rhnpush -- 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 485007] Review Request: rhnpush - Package uploader for the RHN Satellite/Spacewalk Server
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=485007 --- Comment #6 from Marcela Maslanova mmasl...@redhat.com 2009-02-18 04:00:09 EDT --- You can leave source code as you have it, but if Fedora is upstream you should upload tarball on proper place on https://fedorahosted.org/releases/ Also there is condition that you should package the latest release. -- 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 485007] Review Request: rhnpush - Package uploader for the RHN Satellite/Spacewalk Server
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=485007 --- Comment #4 from Marcela Maslanova mmasl...@redhat.com 2009-02-17 09:28:42 EDT --- But if I do it then I have 7f847b5b6066ced228e7b7868524cdcf rhnpush-0.4.2.tar.gz. So we have two problems instead one. You should package the latest version and here are different sources :) The other issues were only comments, nothing serious. -- 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 485007] Review Request: rhnpush - Package uploader for the RHN Satellite/Spacewalk Server
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=485007 --- Comment #5 from Michael Stahnke mastah...@gmail.com 2009-02-17 10:48:35 EDT --- If I am reading this correctly, I should package the released Tarball and not the generated tarball from Git. Is that correct? -- 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 485007] Review Request: rhnpush - Package uploader for the RHN Satellite/Spacewalk Server
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=485007 Marcela Maslanova mmasl...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mmasl...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Marcela Maslanova mmasl...@redhat.com 2009-02-13 08:46:35 EDT --- FAIL source files match upstream The source should be written as whole path. OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines. OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. OK dist tag is present. OK build root is correct. OK license field (same as Perl) matches the actual license. OK license is open source-compatible. License text not included upstream. OK latest version is being packaged. OK BuildRequires are proper. OK %clean is present. OK package builds in mock (Rawhide/x86_64). http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1124650 OK debuginfo package isn't need. OK rpmlint is silent. OK final provides and requires look sane. OK no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. OK owns the directories it creates. OK no duplicates in %files. OK file permissions are appropriate. OK no scriptlets present. OK code, not content. OK documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. OK no headers. OK no pkgconfig files. OK no libtool .la droppings. Shouldn't be test executed as a part of build process? (btw you have ugly man page of rhnpush the synopsis part.) -- 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 485007] Review Request: rhnpush - Package uploader for the RHN Satellite/Spacewalk Server
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=485007 --- Comment #2 from Michael Stahnke mastah...@gmail.com 2009-02-13 21:31:37 EDT --- Spec URL: http://stahnma.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rhnpush.spec SRPM URL: http://stahnma.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rhnpush-0.3.1-3.fc10.src.rpm * I have updated the package slightly. I added a source description, as per http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL . * I tried to play with %check and tests, but I couldn't them to work. It seems like I am missing a harness setup of some type. I will ping the sw-dev list and see if I can find out anything. Either way, that shouldn't be a blocker for package review. * Man page: It's a little different than many, but certainly not wrong. See (man vim), it looks similar. I think it's because the man page is generated using doc2book on the SGML file. I'd rather just write it in groff, but I am not upstream. -- 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 485007] Review Request: rhnpush - Package uploader for the RHN Satellite/Spacewalk Server
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=485007 --- Comment #3 from Michael Stahnke mastah...@gmail.com 2009-02-13 21:48:42 EDT --- Spec URL: http://stahnma.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rhnpush.spec SRPM URL: http://stahnma.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rhnpush-0.3.1-4.fc10.src.rpm * Found a better Source URL. -- 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 485007] Review Request: rhnpush - Package uploader for the RHN Satellite/Spacewalk Server
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=485007 Michael Stahnke mastah...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||452450 -- 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
