[Bug 1104746] Review Request: soscleaner - sosreport data obfuscation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1104746 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|soscleaner-0.2-1.el6|soscleaner-0.2-1.fc20 --- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- soscleaner-0.2-1.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 1104746] Review Request: soscleaner - sosreport data obfuscation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1104746 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- soscleaner-0.2-1.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 1104746] Review Request: soscleaner - sosreport data obfuscation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1104746 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ppi...@redhat.com --- Comment #20 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com --- Guys, please follow the Fedora review processes https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process. This review is neither in ASSIGNED state, neither has fedora-review+. So there is no point in requesting fedora‑cvs? (And I do not comment reassigning the review to cvs component.) -- 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 1104746] Review Request: soscleaner - sosreport data obfuscation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1104746 --- Comment #21 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Review flag not set. -- 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 1104746] Review Request: soscleaner - sosreport data obfuscation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1104746 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|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 1104746] Review Request: soscleaner - sosreport data obfuscation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1104746 Jamie Duncan jdun...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ 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 1104746] Review Request: soscleaner - sosreport data obfuscation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1104746 --- Comment #22 from Jamie Duncan jdun...@redhat.com --- setting flags back to what they're supposed to be. fedora-review was ack'd in c#14. resetting fedora-cvs flag to ? -- 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 1104746] Review Request: soscleaner - sosreport data obfuscation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1104746 --- Comment #23 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 1104746] Review Request: soscleaner - sosreport data obfuscation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1104746 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 1104746] Review Request: soscleaner - sosreport data obfuscation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1104746 --- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- soscleaner-0.2-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/soscleaner-0.2-1.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 1104746] Review Request: soscleaner - sosreport data obfuscation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1104746 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 1104746] Review Request: soscleaner - sosreport data obfuscation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1104746 --- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- soscleaner-0.2-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/soscleaner-0.2-1.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 1104746] Review Request: soscleaner - sosreport data obfuscation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1104746 --- Comment #16 from Jamie Duncan jdun...@redhat.com --- weird md5sum mismatch... SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/jduncan/soscleaner/soscleaner-0.2-1.fc20.src.rpm Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/jduncan/soscleaner/soscleaner.spec -- 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 1104746] Review Request: soscleaner - sosreport data obfuscation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1104746 Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | --- Comment #17 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com --- You're now sponsored. Lifting FE-NEEDSPONSOR. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- 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 1104746] Review Request: soscleaner - sosreport data obfuscation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1104746 Jamie Duncan jdun...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ppi...@redhat.com Component|Package Review |cvs Flags|fedora-review+ |fedora-cvs? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1104746] Review Request: soscleaner - sosreport data obfuscation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1104746 --- Comment #18 from Jamie Duncan jdun...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: soscleaner Short Description: analyse and scrub sensitive sosreport data Upstream URL: https://github.com/jduncan-rva/soscleaner Owners: jduncan Branches: el6 epel7 f20 f21 InitialCC: jduncan -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1104746] Review Request: soscleaner - sosreport data obfuscation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1104746
--- Comment #19 from Paul W. Frields pfrie...@redhat.com ---
Spot, I was just talking to Jamie in IRC, apparently while you were working on
this. I'm happy to {co-,}sponsor him for this package. I had set up a watch
on his email and hadn't got to the step of noting in this bug that I'd take the
sponsorship.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1104746] Review Request: soscleaner - sosreport data obfuscation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1104746 Paul W. Frields pfrie...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Component|cvs |Package 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 1104746] Review Request: soscleaner - sosreport data obfuscation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1104746 Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tcall...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|tcall...@redhat.com Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #14 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com --- Package Review === rpmlint reports: soscleaner.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) sosreport - misreport, presort soscleaner.src: W: file-size-mismatch soscleaner-0.1.tar.gz = 14660, http://people.redhat.com/jduncan/soscleaner/soscleaner-0.1.tar.gz = 15244 soscleaner.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) sosreport - misreport, presort The spelling-errors are false positives, but you should see why the tarballs do not match. - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license (GPLv2) OK, text in %doc, matches source - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream - package compiles on devel (noarch) - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file Simple package, easy review, APPROVED. Please do check that the tarballs match up before committing the bits to Fedora. -- 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 1104746] Review Request: soscleaner - sosreport data obfuscation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1104746 --- Comment #15 from Jamie Duncan jdun...@redhat.com --- SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/jduncan/soscleaner/soscleaner-0.2-1.el7.src.rpm Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/jduncan/soscleaner/soscleaner.spec -- 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 1104746] Review Request: soscleaner - sosreport data obfuscation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1104746 Jamie Duncan jdun...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo? |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 1104746] Review Request: soscleaner - sosreport data obfuscation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1104746 Jamie Duncan jdun...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo? -- 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 1104746] Review Request: soscleaner - sosreport data obfuscation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1104746 Jamie Duncan jdun...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo? --- Comment #12 from Jamie Duncan jdun...@redhat.com --- SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/jduncan/soscleaner/soscleaner-0.1-12.fc20.src.rpm Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/jduncan/soscleaner/soscleaner.spec -- 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 1104746] Review Request: soscleaner - sosreport data obfuscation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1104746 Jamie Duncan jdun...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo? | --- Comment #13 from Jamie Duncan jdun...@redhat.com --- reason for needinfo I've pinged into #fedora-devel and asked around to those I know. How do I help this get some traction? -- 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 1104746] Review Request: soscleaner - sosreport data obfuscation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1104746
--- Comment #9 from Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me ---
1. Why was the release bumped to 12 suddenly?
2. %doc /usr/share/doc/%{name}-%{version}/LICENSE
%doc /usr/share/man/man8/%{name}.8.gz
/usr/share -- %{_datadir}
/usr/share/doc -- %{_docdir}
/usr/share/man/ -- %{_mandir}
For manpages, it's better to include them as:
%{_mandir}/man8/%{name}.8*, as the * is helpful if the manpages are not
compressed(rpm will do this)
And dont mark these as %doc, they will be marked automatically by RPM.
--
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 1104746] Review Request: soscleaner - sosreport data obfuscation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1104746
--- Comment #10 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net ---
Christopher, that's
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Macros
with a few explanations. Nowadays it is not mandatory anymore to use path
macros.
For paths which don't change often (or which have been pretty much constant
over many years), there is no benefit in using macros. Especially not if the
packaged software hardcodes its installation paths somewhere. However, if
parts of the build framework (such as a configure script) accept definitions
from within the spec file (such as with the %configure macro or options to
make), it can be beneficial to reuse the same path macros inside the %files
list(s).
And dont mark these as %doc, they will be marked automatically by RPM.
Which means it's not a strict don't, but nice to know.
$ rpm -E %__docdir_path
/usr/share/doc:/usr/share/man:/usr/share/info:/usr/share/gtk-doc/html::/usr/share/man:/usr/share/info:/usr/share/javadoc:/usr/doc:/usr/man:/usr/info:/usr/X11R6/man
fedora-review
[ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/doc/soscleaner-0.1
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/doc/soscleaner-0.1
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories
It could be fixed with an added %dir entry for
/usr/share/doc/%{name}-%{version} or by including the entire directory instead
only the LICENSE file.
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
GPL (v2 or later). Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/jduncan/1104746-soscleaner/licensecheck.txt
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#.22or_later_version.22_licenses
Rpmlint
soscleaner.src:17: W: setup-not-quiet
That refers to using %setup -q … and really is not an issue. Non-quiet %setup
output can be helpful in a build.log.
soscleaner.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/SOSCleaner.py 0644L /usr/bin/env
That's a strange error message:
rpmlint -i … would tell '''This text file contains a shebang or is located in a
path dedicated for executables, but lacks the executable bits and cannot thus
be executed. If the file is meant to be an executable script, add the
executable bits, otherwise remove the shebang or move the file elsewhere.'''
Since it's the Python Modules' path and not a path for executables, the shebang
is harmless ... but useless. Probably that's why rpmlint points it out.
--
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 1104746] Review Request: soscleaner - sosreport data obfuscation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1104746 --- Comment #11 from Jamie Duncan jdun...@redhat.com --- Michael, Christopher, et al, Thanks again for the continued feedback. I've made the above changes and things continue to look cleaner. koji builds cleanly, and fedora-review now shows cleaner as well. Cheers, Jamie Duncan -- 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 1104746] Review Request: soscleaner - sosreport data obfuscation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1104746 --- Comment #1 from Jamie Duncan jdun...@redhat.com --- EL6 Candidate Koji Build: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1104746 F20 Koji Build: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1104746 -- 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 1104746] Review Request: soscleaner - sosreport data obfuscation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1104746 --- Comment #2 from Jamie Duncan jdun...@redhat.com --- don't know what happened there... EL6: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6924175 F20: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6924156 -- 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 1104746] Review Request: soscleaner - sosreport data obfuscation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1104746 Jamie Duncan jdun...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- 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 1104746] Review Request: soscleaner - sosreport data obfuscation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1104746
--- Comment #3 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net ---
Spec URL:
http://people.redhahttp://people.redhat.com/jduncan/soscleaner/soscleaner.spec
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/jduncan/soscleaner/soscleaner.spec
During review, keep the SRPM URL: and Spec URL: lines up-to-date when you
modify the package, so the fedora-review tool can be used. Consider running
fedora-review -b 1104746 to let that tool perform many helpful checks.
The spec file is full of mistakes and pitfalls.
%define name soscleaner
%define version 0.1
%define release 11
%{name}, %{version} and %{release} are implicitly defined by the Name:,
Version: and Release: tags, so it's very poor form to first define these
macros only to have the tags redefine the macros afterwards.
If you want these values at the top of the spec file, move the tags at the top.
Easy as that.
%define unmangled_version 0.1
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25global_preferred_over_.25define
Source0: %{name}-%{unmangled_version}.tar.gz
That's not an URL:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL
Group: Applications
Not a group listed in /usr/share/doc/rpm/GROUPS and the Group tag is optional
nowadays. In case of doubt, remove the tag from the spec file:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Group_tag
BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-buildroot
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
Prefix: %{_prefix}
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Relocatable_packages
Vendor: Jamie Duncan jdun...@redhat.com
Packager: Jamie Duncan jdun...@redhat.com
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags
%clean
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25clean
%files -f INSTALLED_FILES
As smart as you may find this technique, it hides too much under the carpet.
What about directory ownership, for example? Prefer listing files and
directories in the %files section directly. Use wildcards where helpful.
%defattr(-,root,root)
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_Permissions
--
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 1104746] Review Request: soscleaner - sosreport data obfuscation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1104746 --- Comment #4 from Jamie Duncan jdun...@redhat.com --- Michael, Thanks for the feedback. The spec file is *almost* 100% how it came from distutils. I will make the above changes and also take advantage of the tools you mention. Thanks again, Jamie Duncan -- 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 1104746] Review Request: soscleaner - sosreport data obfuscation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1104746 --- Comment #5 from Jamie Duncan jdun...@redhat.com --- Michael and everyone else. It's amazing how much more sense the Packaging Guide makes when you have a little push in the right direction and a goal. I've refactored the spec file to be (I think) in line with the guidelines. I've also confirmed it builds of course both on my local system and in Koji. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6925123 I bumped up the release number to 12, with artifacts available at: SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/jduncan/soscleaner/soscleaner-0.1-12.src.rpm Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/jduncan/soscleaner/soscleaner.spec Thanks again for helping to straighten me out. Jamie Duncan -- 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 1104746] Review Request: soscleaner - sosreport data obfuscation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1104746 --- Comment #6 from Jamie Duncan jdun...@redhat.com --- Created attachment 902362 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=902362action=edit f-e review.txt -- 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 1104746] Review Request: soscleaner - sosreport data obfuscation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1104746 --- Comment #7 from Jamie Duncan jdun...@redhat.com --- SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/jduncan/soscleaner/soscleaner-0.1-12.fc20.src.rpm Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/jduncan/soscleaner/soscleaner.spec -- 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 1104746] Review Request: soscleaner - sosreport data obfuscation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1104746 --- Comment #8 from Jamie Duncan jdun...@redhat.com --- have gone through fedora-review a few times and it looks solid to me at this point. Definitely a learning experience. -- 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
