[Bug 502693] Review Request: Elgg 1.5 - An open source social networking platform.
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=502693 --- Comment #9 from Louis Lagendijk lo...@lagendijk.xs4all.nl 2010-01-09 08:42:41 EST --- Ping? Still no reaction! I propose to close this review -- 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 502693] Review Request: Elgg 1.5 - An open source social networking platform.
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=502693 --- Comment #10 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-01-09 09:35:36 EST --- Let's wait for another one week. If no response is received from the reporter within one week, you or I will close this bug as NOTABUG. -- 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 502693] Review Request: Elgg 1.5 - An open source social networking platform.
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=502693 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(justin.galla...@g ||mail.com) --- Comment #7 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-09-16 03:24:50 EDT --- What is the status of this bug? -- 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 502693] Review Request: Elgg 1.5 - An open source social networking platform.
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=502693 Justin Gallardo justin.galla...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(justin.galla...@g | |mail.com) | --- Comment #8 from Justin Gallardo justin.galla...@gmail.com 2009-09-16 03:41:31 EDT --- I would like to keep working on it, but just haven't been able to find the time. I think I will have this coming weekend though. I'll get back with the changes I make. -- 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 502693] Review Request: Elgg 1.5 - An open source social networking platform.
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=502693 --- Comment #6 from Louis Lagendijk lo...@lagendijk.xs4all.nl 2009-08-10 15:31:37 EDT --- ping? -- 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 502693] Review Request: Elgg 1.5 - An open source social networking platform.
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=502693 --- Comment #5 from Justin Gallardo justin.galla...@gmail.com 2009-06-24 17:59:41 EDT --- Thanks for the notes. I have been swamped lately, but will have some time to look at this again very soon. -- 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 502693] Review Request: Elgg 1.5 - An open source social networking platform.
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=502693
Louis Lagendijk lo...@lagendijk.xs4all.nl changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lo...@lagendijk.xs4all.nl
--- Comment #1 from Louis Lagendijk lo...@lagendijk.xs4all.nl 2009-06-06
12:32:17 EDT ---
Here is my pre-review of your package. I have not yet been able to test the
package as I do not like running my system with selinux disabled.
This is not a full fledged review as I am requiring a sponsor, just like you.
Legend:
+: OK
-: not ok, see notes
N: Not applicable
?: Not sure, please comment
- MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package.
[lo...@travel tmp]$ rpmlint *README.txt:
elgg.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary Elgg
elgg.src: W: invalid-license GPL
Remove the Elgg from the summary, e.g. This package provides and extensible
social networking platform
License should be GPLv2 according to the website, GPLv2 or later according to
the README.txt, so I assume that GPLv2+ is appropriate.
+ MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
- MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec
remove the version from the specfilename
See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Spec_file_name
? MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
Specfile does not define buildroot, is that ok?
mod_rewrite is required according to the website, is it missing
idem for json
Php SOAP, DOM mbstring are recommended. Do these require additional
dependencies?
Why are wget and ImageMagic needed? They are not listed as dependences on the
website.
+ MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
- MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license. [3]
See above+ MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text
+ MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5]
+ MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]
+ 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. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
+ MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture. [7]
N MUST: If the package does not successfully compile
+ MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
N MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
N MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [10]
N MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable
+ MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
- MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings. [13]
Don't know why this happens, nut buildlog says: warning: File listed twice:
/usr/share/elgg/.htaccess
I asssume this is caused by the fact that you list both the file itself AND
%{elggdir}
+ MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
+ MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [15]
+ MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [16]
+ MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17]
N MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
+ MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime
of the application.
N MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [19]
N MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [20]
N MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig
N MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release} [22]
N MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.[20]
N MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file,
N 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). [25]
? MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [26]
I dont know how to check this
+ SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD
[Bug 502693] Review Request: Elgg 1.5 - An open source social networking platform.
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=502693 --- Comment #2 from Louis Lagendijk lo...@lagendijk.xs4all.nl 2009-06-06 12:56:00 EDT --- I looked a bit more into the use of jquery etc. You are actually including a COMPILED version of jquery (while later versions are available). The source files are NOT included! The same applies to the jquery.easing plugin. kses is included, but the docs end up under /usr/share/elgg/vendors/kses/docs. I guess that all stuff under vendors must be moved out to separate packages. -- 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 502693] Review Request: Elgg 1.5 - An open source social networking platform.
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=502693
--- Comment #3 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-06-06
15:36:57 EDT ---
Only commenting for the previous comments (I have not
checked the srpm from the submitter itself)
(In reply to comment #1)
Legend:
+: OK
-: not ok, see notes
N: Not applicable
?: Not sure, please comment
? MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
Specfile does not define buildroot, is that ok?
- This can be ignored
(on rpm 4.4.X BuildRoot in spec file defines %buildroot.
on rpm 4.6+ BuildRoot is completely ignored and %buildroot
is defined automatically)
- MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's
%files listings. [13]
Don't know why this happens, nut buildlog says: warning: File listed twice:
/usr/share/elgg/.htaccess
I asssume this is caused by the fact that you list both the file itself AND
%{elggdir}
- Actually when the spec file contains
--
%files
foo/
--
(where foo is a directory) this contains the directory
foo itself and all files/directories/etc under foo/.
By the way, at least please specify full URL for Source0:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL
--
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 502693] Review Request: Elgg 1.5 - An open source social networking platform.
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=502693 --- Comment #4 from Louis Lagendijk lo...@lagendijk.xs4all.nl 2009-06-06 15:41:33 EDT --- Buildroot is defined anyhow. I don't know how i managed to overlook it. -- 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 502693] Review Request: Elgg 1.5 - An open source social networking platform.
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=502693 Igor Jurišković juriskovic.i...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||juriskovic.i...@gmail.com Blocks||177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- 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
