[Bug 1495290] Review Request: dlrn - Build and maintain yum repositories following OpenStack upstream commits

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1495290

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2017-10-16 20:12:56



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
dlrn-0.5.0-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1495290] Review Request: dlrn - Build and maintain yum repositories following OpenStack upstream commits

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1495290

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|ON_QA



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
dlrn-0.5.0-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-2186a6625c

-- 
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 1495290] Review Request: dlrn - Build and maintain yum repositories following OpenStack upstream commits

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1495290



--- Comment #5 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/dlrn. You may commit to the branch "f27" in
about 10 minutes.

-- 
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 1495290] Review Request: dlrn - Build and maintain yum repositories following OpenStack upstream commits

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1495290

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
Okay, package accepted.

-- 
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 1495290] Review Request: dlrn - Build and maintain yum repositories following OpenStack upstream commits

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1495290



--- Comment #3 from Javier Peña  ---
I have updated the file and directory permissions, and bumped the version to
include the latest upstream release (0.5.0).

- Spec: https://jpena.fedorapeople.org/dlrn/dlrn.spec
- SRPM: https://jpena.fedorapeople.org/dlrn/dlrn-0.5.0-1.fc28.src.rpm

Koji scratch build at
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=22103479

-- 
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 1495290] Review Request: dlrn - Build and maintain yum repositories following OpenStack upstream commits

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1495290



--- Comment #2 from Javier Peña  ---
Thanks for the review. Actually, I think it makes more sense to make
permissions 750/640 for directories and files, I'll change that.

About the other warnings:

- The package creates its own user and assigns the config/var directories to
it, so I guess there is no way to avoid the non-standard-uid / non-standard-gid
warnings.

- The dangling symlink /usr/bin/dlrn points to /usr/bin/dlrn-2.7, which is
owned by the python2-dlrn subpackage. I could move the symlink to that package
if it makes more sense. My idea was that, if we switch the default to python3,
we could just change the symlink in the main package, and its dependency.

-- 
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 1495290] Review Request: dlrn - Build and maintain yum repositories following OpenStack upstream commits

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1495290

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
- RPMlint warnings:

dlrn.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /etc/dlrn dlrn
dlrn.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /etc/dlrn dlrn
dlrn.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /etc/dlrn/projects.ini dlrn
dlrn.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /etc/dlrn/projects.ini dlrn
dlrn.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/bin/dlrn /usr/bin/dlrn-2.7
dlrn.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /usr/share/dlrn dlrn
dlrn.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /usr/share/dlrn dlrn
dlrn.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/dlrn dlrn
dlrn.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/dlrn dlrn
dlrn.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/dlrn/data dlrn
dlrn.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/dlrn/data dlrn

What is the rationale behind using 755 for etc, share and var?


Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



= 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.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Apache (v2.0)", "*No copyright* Apache", "Unknown or
 generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 61 files have unknown
 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/dlrn/review-dlrn/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[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.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[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.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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 %license.
[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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[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]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build