[Bug 1058765] Review Request: mono-cecil - Library to generate and inspect programs and libraries in the ECMA CIL form
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058765 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||OpenTK-1.1-1.4c.fc21 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2015-01-06 01:16:48 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- OpenTK-1.1-1.4c.fc21, mono-cecil-0.9.5-3.20140924git6d1b7d0.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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 1058765] Review Request: mono-cecil - Library to generate and inspect programs and libraries in the ECMA CIL form
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058765 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- Package OpenTK-1.1-1.4c.fc21, mono-cecil-0.9.5-3.20140924git6d1b7d0.fc21: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing OpenTK-1.1-1.4c.fc21 mono-cecil-0.9.5-3.20140924git6d1b7d0.fc21' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-17689/OpenTK-1.1-1.4c.fc21,mono-cecil-0.9.5-3.20140924git6d1b7d0.fc21 then log in and leave karma (feedback). -- 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 1058765] Review Request: mono-cecil - Library to generate and inspect programs and libraries in the ECMA CIL form
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058765 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|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 1058765] Review Request: mono-cecil - Library to generate and inspect programs and libraries in the ECMA CIL form
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058765 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- mono-cecil-0.9.5-3.20140924git6d1b7d0.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mono-cecil-0.9.5-3.20140924git6d1b7d0.fc21 -- 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 1058765] Review Request: mono-cecil - Library to generate and inspect programs and libraries in the ECMA CIL form
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058765 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- OpenTK-1.1-1.4c.fc21,mono-cecil-0.9.5-3.20140924git6d1b7d0.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/OpenTK-1.1-1.4c.fc21,mono-cecil-0.9.5-3.20140924git6d1b7d0.fc21 -- 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 1058765] Review Request: mono-cecil - Library to generate and inspect programs and libraries in the ECMA CIL form
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058765 --- Comment #13 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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 1058765] Review Request: mono-cecil - Library to generate and inspect programs and libraries in the ECMA CIL form
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058765 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.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 1058765] Review Request: mono-cecil - Library to generate and inspect programs and libraries in the ECMA CIL form
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058765 --- Comment #11 from Miro Hrončok mhron...@redhat.com --- Thanks a lot, Will. -- 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 1058765] Review Request: mono-cecil - Library to generate and inspect programs and libraries in the ECMA CIL form
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058765 Miro Hrončok mhron...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #12 from Miro Hrončok mhron...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: mono-cecil Short Description: Library to generate and inspect programs and libraries in the ECMA CIL form Upstream URL: http://www.mono-project.com/Cecil Owners: churchyard Branches: f21 -- 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 1058765] Review Request: mono-cecil - Library to generate and inspect programs and libraries in the ECMA CIL form
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058765 Will Benton wi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ |needinfo?(wi...@redhat.com) | --- Comment #10 from Will Benton wi...@redhat.com --- Thanks for the updates, Miro. You've addressed all of my concerns from the review and the package looks fine now. (We're still waiting on a clarification on the Mono guidelines, unfortunately!) -- 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 1058765] Review Request: mono-cecil - Library to generate and inspect programs and libraries in the ECMA CIL form
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058765 Miro Hrončok mhron...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(wi...@redhat.com) --- Comment #7 from Miro Hrončok mhron...@redhat.com --- So once again, after a long time: Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/hroncok/SPECS/c3a1defc8d7625aab20e36721688ae6dbff3e633/mono-cecil.spec SRPM URL: https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/mono-cecil-0.9.5-3.20140924git6d1b7d0.fc20.src.rpm It's updated. I definitely don't run test, because I was not bale to do that sorry. Will, still doing the review? Thanks -- 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 1058765] Review Request: mono-cecil - Library to generate and inspect programs and libraries in the ECMA CIL form
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058765 --- Comment #8 from Miro Hrončok mhron...@redhat.com --- s/bale/able/ -- 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 1058765] Review Request: mono-cecil - Library to generate and inspect programs and libraries in the ECMA CIL form
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058765 --- Comment #9 from Miro Hrončok mhron...@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/hroncok/SPECS/master/mono-cecil.spec SRPM URL: https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/mono-cecil-0.9.5-3.20140924git6d1b7d0.fc20.src.rpm After removing bundled nunit, I had to patch the sln file not to build the tests -- 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 1058765] Review Request: mono-cecil - Library to generate and inspect programs and libraries in the ECMA CIL form
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058765 Miro Hrončok mhron...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(mhroncok@redhat.c | |om) | --- Comment #6 from Miro Hrončok mhron...@redhat.com --- Well, I was not able to run the tests. So I would go for no %check. However, it seems a lot of commits had passed since February, so I'll check whatever version RepetierHost needs and test that again. -- 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 1058765] Review Request: mono-cecil - Library to generate and inspect programs and libraries in the ECMA CIL form
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058765 Jeffrey C. Ollie j...@ocjtech.us changed: What|Removed |Added CC||j...@ocjtech.us, ||mhron...@redhat.com Flags||needinfo?(mhroncok@redhat.c ||om) --- Comment #5 from Jeffrey C. Ollie j...@ocjtech.us --- Any news on getting this finished up? Until this gets into Fedora and OpenTK gets updated RepetierHost won't work. -- 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 1058765] Review Request: mono-cecil - Library to generate and inspect programs and libraries in the ECMA CIL form
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058765
--- Comment #1 from Will Benton wi...@redhat.com ---
Thanks for your hard work packaging this project! There are a few
minor things to address before I can approve the review.
Issues and notes:
* Thanks for using a commit SHA to specify your source archive
location.
* Please replace the hard-coded /usr/lib/mono with a macro; you may
define %{monodir} as /usr/lib/mono in this spec, but I am planning
to get a clarification to the Mono guidelines that has an official
macro (see https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/395).
* You probably should require mono-core since (1) mono-core is required
to use mono-cecil and (2) you place files in /usr/lib/mono/gac,
which mono-core owns. These conditions are listed in
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership
Note that Cecil's functional dependency on mono-core is captured by
its (automatically-generated) Requires at the moment, but
the explicit Requires: mono-core is to ensure that you comply by
the file and directory ownership guidelines even if the assemblies
you depend on move to another package than the gac directory in the
future. It also appears to be common practice among mono libraries to
explicitly depend on mono-core.
* Please file an issue upstream to get a license file included in the
source tarball.
* It appears that this package includes tests. Please either run them
(in %check) or justify why the tests can't be run in koji with a
specfile comment.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
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.
[-]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
MIT/X11 (BSD like), Unknown or generated. 76 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/wibenton/devel/review
/mono-cecil/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
- see explanation above
[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.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
- see explanation above
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
- except as already mentioned
[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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[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
[Bug 1058765] Review Request: mono-cecil - Library to generate and inspect programs and libraries in the ECMA CIL form
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058765 --- Comment #2 from Miro Hrončok mhron...@redhat.com --- Thanks for the review. I've pushed new spec that fixes your issues (no new SRPM yet): https://raw.github.com/hroncok/SPECS/master/mono-cecil.spec I tried to run the tests by nunit, but so far I have no success, could you give me a hand with it please? I have no idea, how should I invoke it in the right way. -- 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 1058765] Review Request: mono-cecil - Library to generate and inspect programs and libraries in the ECMA CIL form
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058765 --- Comment #3 from Will Benton wi...@redhat.com --- (One more thing: there is a bundled nunit installation in Test/; please remove this during %prep.) -- 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 1058765] Review Request: mono-cecil - Library to generate and inspect programs and libraries in the ECMA CIL form
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058765 --- Comment #4 from Will Benton wi...@redhat.com --- (In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #2) Thanks for the review. I've pushed new spec that fixes your issues (no new SRPM yet): https://raw.github.com/hroncok/SPECS/master/mono-cecil.spec I tried to run the tests by nunit, but so far I have no success, could you give me a hand with it please? I have no idea, how should I invoke it in the right way. I've taken a look at this; unfortunately, I'm not a Mono expert and can find no other packages that use nunit (or nant, which depends on nunit) in their builds! It looks like you'll need to compile the projects in Test and rocks/Test before running any tests, but actually running the tests from the given configuration file (I used nunit-console Mono.Cecil.nunit) fails because some symbol files and libraries aren't where they are expected. If you could reach out to upstream and ask how they run tests as part of their CI, that would probably be helpful. If it's going to be a lot of work to get the tests running, though, I won't hold up the review just because of a missing %check. -- 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 1058765] Review Request: mono-cecil - Library to generate and inspect programs and libraries in the ECMA CIL form
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058765 Will Benton wi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||wi...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|wi...@redhat.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 1058765] Review Request: mono-cecil - Library to generate and inspect programs and libraries in the ECMA CIL form
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058765 Miro Hrončok mhron...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1032883 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1032883 [Bug 1032883] OpenTK-2013.11.12 is available -- 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
