[Bug 1052852] Review Request: glite-lb-utils - gLite Logging and Bookkeeping auxiliary utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1052852 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||glite-lb-utils-2.3.10-2.fc2 ||0 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2014-07-03 00:05:51 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- glite-lb-utils-2.3.10-2.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. -- 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 1052852] Review Request: glite-lb-utils - gLite Logging and Bookkeeping auxiliary utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1052852 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- glite-lb-utils-2.3.10-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. -- 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 1052852] Review Request: glite-lb-utils - gLite Logging and Bookkeeping auxiliary utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1052852 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED -- 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 1052852] Review Request: glite-lb-utils - gLite Logging and Bookkeeping auxiliary utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1052852 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- glite-lb-utils-2.3.10-2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/glite-lb-utils-2.3.10-2.fc20 -- 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 1052852] Review Request: glite-lb-utils - gLite Logging and Bookkeeping auxiliary utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1052852 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- glite-lb-utils-2.3.10-2.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/glite-lb-utils-2.3.10-2.fc19 -- 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 1052852] Review Request: glite-lb-utils - gLite Logging and Bookkeeping auxiliary utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1052852 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- glite-lb-utils-2.3.10-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/glite-lb-utils-2.3.10-2.el6 -- 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 1052852] Review Request: glite-lb-utils - gLite Logging and Bookkeeping auxiliary utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1052852 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- glite-lb-utils-2.3.10-2.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository. -- 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 1052852] Review Request: glite-lb-utils - gLite Logging and Bookkeeping auxiliary utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1052852 Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- 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 1052852] Review Request: glite-lb-utils - gLite Logging and Bookkeeping auxiliary utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1052852 --- Comment #7 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). Please assign the review bug to the reviewer. -- 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 1052852] Review Request: glite-lb-utils - gLite Logging and Bookkeeping auxiliary utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1052852 František Dvořák val...@civ.zcu.cz changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|tura...@gmail.com -- 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 1052852] Review Request: glite-lb-utils - gLite Logging and Bookkeeping auxiliary utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1052852
Mihkel Vain tura...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Mihkel Vain tura...@gmail.com ---
Spec file looks good to me and fedora-review is not complaining either.
APPROVED
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[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).
[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 requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[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]: 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
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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 (not strictly required in GL).
[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 %define unless justified.
= EXTRA items =
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
arched.
[x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
---
Checking: glite-lb-utils-2.3.10-2.fc20.x86_64.rpm
glite-lb-utils-2.3.10-2.fc20.src.rpm
glite-lb-utils.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C gLite Logging and
Bookkeeping auxiliary utilities
glite-lb-utils.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mon - Mon, non,
min
glite-lb-utils.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mortem - Mort,
tremor
glite-lb-utils.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C gLite Logging and Bookkeeping
auxiliary utilities
glite-lb-utils.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mon - Mon, non,
min
glite-lb-utils.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mortem - Mort,
tremor
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
# rpmlint glite-lb-utils
glite-lb-utils.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C gLite Logging and
Bookkeeping auxiliary utilities
glite-lb-utils.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mon - Mon, non,
min
glite-lb-utils.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mortem - Mort,
tremor
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires
glite-lb-utils (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/bin/bash
glite-lb-state-machine-plugins(x86-64)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libdl.so.2()(64bit)
libglite_jobid.so.2()(64bit)
libglite_jp_common.so.2()(64bit)
libglite_lb_client.so.14()(64bit)
libglite_lb_clientpp.so.14()(64bit)
libglite_lb_common.so.16()(64bit)
libglite_lb_statemachine.so.6()(64bit)
libglite_lbu_maildir.so.2()(64bit)
libglite_lbu_trio.so.2()(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides
glite-lb-utils:
glite-lb-utils
glite-lb-utils(x86-64)
Source checksums
[Bug 1052852] Review Request: glite-lb-utils - gLite Logging and Bookkeeping auxiliary utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1052852 František Dvořák val...@civ.zcu.cz changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from František Dvořák val...@civ.zcu.cz --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: glite-lb-utils Short Description: gLite Logging and Bookkeeping auxiliary utilities Upstream URL: http://glite.cern.ch Owners: valtri Branches: f19 f20 el6 InitialCC: -- 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 1052852] Review Request: glite-lb-utils - gLite Logging and Bookkeeping auxiliary utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1052852 --- Comment #4 from František Dvořák val...@civ.zcu.cz --- Spec URL: http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/glite-lb-utils-2.3.10-2/glite-lb-utils.spec SRPM URL: http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/glite-lb-utils-2.3.10-2/glite-lb-utils-2.3.10-2.fc21.src.rpm My first package review. I'll do my best :) :-) Thanks for the review! ^--- I guess we can ignore these. At least to me there are no spelling mistakes and since gLite is the preferred way to spell it, we should not capitalize it. I agree. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/ Guidelines#Man_pages Man pages are the traditional method of getting help on a unix system. Packages should contain man pages for all binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them. Sometimes, other distributions (notably Debian), have man pages for programs. You can use those as a starting point. You should provide man pages for those binaries. Man pages created. -- 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 1052852] Review Request: glite-lb-utils - gLite Logging and Bookkeeping auxiliary utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1052852 Mihkel Vain tura...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tura...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- 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 1052852] Review Request: glite-lb-utils - gLite Logging and Bookkeeping auxiliary utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1052852
--- Comment #3 from Mihkel Vain tura...@gmail.com ---
My first package review. I'll do my best :)
Rpmlint detected some warnings.
$ rpmlint *.rpm
glite-lb-utils.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C gLite Logging and Bookkeeping
auxiliary utilities
glite-lb-utils.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mon - Mon, non,
min
glite-lb-utils.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mortem - Mort,
tremor
glite-lb-utils.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C gLite Logging and
Bookkeeping auxiliary utilities
glite-lb-utils.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mon - Mon, non,
min
glite-lb-utils.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mortem - Mort,
tremor
^--- I guess we can ignore these. At least to me there are no spelling mistakes
and since gLite is the preferred way to spell it, we should not capitalize it.
glite-lb-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary glite-lb-bkpurge-offline
glite-lb-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary glite-lb-dump_exporter
glite-lb-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary glite-lb-state_history
glite-lb-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary glite-lb-statistics
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Man_pages
Man pages are the traditional method of getting help on a unix system. Packages
should contain man pages for all binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with
upstream to add them. Sometimes, other distributions (notably Debian), have man
pages for programs. You can use those as a starting point.
You should provide man pages for those binaries.
Otherwise it looks good. Just provide man pages and I think this package is
good to go.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[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).
[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 requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[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]: 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
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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 (not strictly required in GL).
[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 %define unless justified.
= EXTRA items =
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
arched.
[x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
---
Checking: glite-lb-utils-2.3.10-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm
glite-lb-utils-2.3.10-1.fc20.src.rpm
glite-lb-utils.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C gLite Logging and
Bookkeeping auxiliary utilities
glite-lb-utils.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mon - Mon, non,
min
glite-lb-utils.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mortem - Mort,
tremor
glite-lb-utils.x86_64: W:
[Bug 1052852] Review Request: glite-lb-utils - gLite Logging and Bookkeeping auxiliary utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1052852 --- Comment #2 from František Dvořák val...@civ.zcu.cz --- Spec URL: http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/glite-lb-utils-2.3.10-1/glite-lb-utils.spec SRPM URL: http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/glite-lb-utils-2.3.10-1/glite-lb-utils-2.3.10-1.fc21.src.rpm koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6914958 * New release glite-lb-utils 2.3.10 (gLite LB 4.1.1) -- 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 1052852] Review Request: glite-lb-utils - gLite Logging and Bookkeeping auxiliary utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1052852 --- Comment #1 from František Dvořák val...@civ.zcu.cz --- Made a selfie: http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/glite-lb-utils-2.3.9-1/self-review.txt Almost all gLite LB packages are in Fedora/EPEL now. This package is runtime dependency for upcoming LB server package. -- 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
