[Bug 1537398] Review Request: spectre-meltdown-checker - Spectre & Meltdown vulnerability/ mitigation checker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1537398 Reto Gantenbein changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2018-02-13 13:04:14 --- Comment #6 from Reto Gantenbein --- Thanks a lot for your support. The package is in the Fedora stable repositories now. Somehow the "Fedora Update System" didn't properly propagate the changes to the bug report: spectre-meltdown-checker-0.33-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-d4404e0708 spectre-meltdown-checker-0.33-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-e3d1c4e564 The packages for the EPEL repositories are also on its way. If anyone could help accelerating this, it would be much appreciated. I guess this bug report can be closed now. Feel free to open another bug if you have any issue with this 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1537398] Review Request: spectre-meltdown-checker - Spectre & Meltdown vulnerability/ mitigation checker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1537398 --- Comment #5 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/spectre-meltdown-checker -- 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 1537398] Review Request: spectre-meltdown-checker - Spectre & Meltdown vulnerability/ mitigation checker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1537398 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST Flags|needinfo?(zebo...@gmail.com |fedora-review+ |) | --- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin --- This package is approved. -- 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 1537398] Review Request: spectre-meltdown-checker - Spectre & Meltdown vulnerability/ mitigation checker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1537398 Neal Gompa changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1537398] Review Request: spectre-meltdown-checker - Spectre & Meltdown vulnerability/ mitigation checker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1537398 Neal Gompa changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(zebo...@gmail.com ||) --- Comment #3 from Neal Gompa --- ganto is now sponsored in the packagers group, good luck! @Robert-Andre, please complete the 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1537398] Review Request: spectre-meltdown-checker - Spectre & Meltdown vulnerability/ mitigation checker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1537398 Neal Gompa changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ngomp...@gmail.com Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | --- Comment #2 from Neal Gompa --- I will sponsor this packager into the packagers collection, provided this package is accepted. I have seen his work in other packages (primarily the LXD COPR repo), and he does a good job with his packaging and trying to follow the Fedora packaging guidelines. 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1537398] Review Request: spectre-meltdown-checker - Spectre & Meltdown vulnerability/ mitigation checker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1537398
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
You're not a member of the packager group, you'll need to find a sponsor. See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group
Try introducing yourself on the devel mailing list too.
Package is fine otherwise, let me know whern
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: "Unknown or generated". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/spectre-meltdown-
checker/review-spectre-meltdown-checker/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[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: No rpmlint messages.
[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]: 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]: 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]: 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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be
