[Bug 1376149] Review Request: fedora-obsolete-packages - A package to obsolete retired packages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376149



--- Comment #11 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
It'd help if you imported the SRPM into the repository, even without building.

So what about F24 → F25 transition? Did nothing get retired?

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1376149] Review Request: fedora-obsolete-packages - A package to obsolete retired packages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376149

Neal Gompa  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ngomp...@gmail.com



--- Comment #10 from Neal Gompa  ---
Fufufufu!

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1376149] Review Request: fedora-obsolete-packages - A package to obsolete retired packages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376149



--- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Do it!  Do it!  Hail Discordia!

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1376149] Review Request: fedora-obsolete-packages - A package to obsolete retired packages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376149



--- Comment #8 from Jason Tibbitts  ---
Well, there's not much point in building the package until there's actually an
obsolete to add to it.  I can drop a build in rawhide, though, if people really
want a completely empty package for whatever reason.

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1376149] Review Request: fedora-obsolete-packages - A package to obsolete retired packages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376149

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl



--- Comment #7 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
This hasn't been built yet. Any plans to put Obsolete specific packages using
this mechanism?

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1376149] Review Request: fedora-obsolete-packages - A package to obsolete retired packages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376149

Jason Tibbitts  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2016-09-19 09:28:34



--- Comment #6 from Jason Tibbitts  ---
That's great, but this package doesn't do any of that.  So... direct your
complaints elsewhere.

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1376149] Review Request: fedora-obsolete-packages - A package to obsolete retired packages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376149



--- Comment #5 from Kevin Kofler  ---
I find it extremely user-unfriendly to automatically remove packages that may
still be working and that explicitly have no replacement and make it painful to
reinstall them.

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1376149] Review Request: fedora-obsolete-packages - A package to obsolete retired packages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376149



--- Comment #4 from Jason Tibbitts  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/fedora-obsolete-packages

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1376149] Review Request: fedora-obsolete-packages - A package to obsolete retired packages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376149



--- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla  ---
(In reply to Jason Tibbitts from comment #2)
> For the record, the weird permission thing is because my umask is 007, which
> is the Posix ACL group scheme with default privacy.  The permissions
> wouldn't be weird if building an srpm in mock or the buildsys.  I kind of
> wish rpmlint would stop complaining about that.

If wishes were horses. . .

-- 
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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1376149] Review Request: fedora-obsolete-packages - A package to obsolete retired packages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376149



--- Comment #2 from Jason Tibbitts  ---
For the record, the weird permission thing is because my umask is 007, which is
the Posix ACL group scheme with default privacy.  The permissions wouldn't be
weird if building an srpm in mock or the buildsys.  I kind of wish rpmlint
would stop complaining about that.

-- 
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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1376149] Review Request: fedora-obsolete-packages - A package to obsolete retired packages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376149

Jon Ciesla  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Jon Ciesla  ---
- rpmlint checks return:

fedora-obsolete-packages.src: W: strange-permission
fedora-obsolete-packages.spec 660
A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions.
Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions.

fedora-obsolete-packages.src: W: no-%prep-section
The spec file does not contain a %prep section.  Even if some packages don't
directly need it, section markers may be overridden in rpm's configuration to
provide additional "under the hood" functionality.  Add the section, even if
empty.

fedora-obsolete-packages.src: W: no-%build-section
The spec file does not contain a %build section.  Even if some packages don't
directly need it, section markers may be overridden in rpm's configuration to
provide additional "under the hood" functionality, such as injection of
automatic -debuginfo subpackages.  Add the section, even if empty.

fedora-obsolete-packages.src: W: no-%install-section
The spec file does not contain an %install section.  Even if some packages
don't directly need it, section markers may be overridden in rpm's
configuration to provide additional "under the hood" functionality.  Add the
section, even if empty.

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.

Ignorable.

- package meets naming guidelines
- package meets packaging guidelines
- license ( Public Domain ) OK, text in %doc, matches source
- spec file legible, in am. english
- source matches upstream
- package compiles on devel (x86)
- no missing BR
- no unnecessary BR
- no locales
- not relocatable
- owns all directories that it creates
- no duplicate files
- permissions ok
- %clean ok
- macro use consistent
- code, not content
- no need for -docs
- nothing in %doc affects runtime
- no need for .desktop file 

Looks great, does what it says on the tin.  I might recommend having something
suggesting that new Obsoletes added include a comment saying when they were
added, so they can be pruned after they're no longer relevant.

-- 
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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1376149] Review Request: fedora-obsolete-packages - A package to obsolete retired packages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376149

Jon Ciesla  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||limburg...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|limburg...@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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org