[Bug 1583448] Review Request: gap-pkg-crime - Group cohomology and Massey products
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1583448 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2018-05-30 23:54:56 --- Comment #7 from Jerry James --- Built in Rawhide. -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/RVNUKQOR3D3CSMRU5Z7Z7LC3ERQYOWS4/
[Bug 1583448] Review Request: gap-pkg-crime - Group cohomology and Massey products
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1583448 --- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gap-pkg-crime -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/6R5F57VWHX4DNMMWMNHZYBH56KA5A47X/
[Bug 1583448] Review Request: gap-pkg-crime - Group cohomology and Massey products
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1583448 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Package 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/FEGQVG3RZCS3J3HZOCFHDETLWC74ZJBI/
[Bug 1583448] Review Request: gap-pkg-crime - Group cohomology and Massey products
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1583448 --- Comment #4 from Jerry James --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #2) > Fix the license like Artur said, otherwise the package is ok. Thank you! New URLs: Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-crime/gap-pkg-crime.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-crime/gap-pkg-crime-1.4-2.fc29.src.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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/MGECHC3NAJVCWYZP6LJDV6UNBBOXECXU/
[Bug 1583448] Review Request: gap-pkg-crime - Group cohomology and Massey products
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1583448
--- Comment #3 from Jerry James ---
(In reply to Artur Iwicki from comment #1)
> doc/crime.xml says "GNU Public Licence, version 2 or later (at your
> preference)". As such, the License: tag should be "GPLv2+".
So it does! I looked for the phrase "any later version" and didn't find it.
Thanks for spotting that. I will fix the license tag.
> You can use %{URL} as part of Source0 to avoid repetition.
Personally, I find that harder (as a human) to read. It makes no difference to
the computer, of course, but I prefer the way it is currently. Thanks for the
suggestion, anyway.
--
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
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/WRQVYIHIKWLQAFKOZFA44KDOPLOCI2XM/
[Bug 1583448] Review Request: gap-pkg-crime - Group cohomology and Massey products
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1583448
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Fix the license like Artur said, otherwise the package is ok.
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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated". 51 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/gap-pkg-crime
/review-gap-pkg-crime/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 2 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: 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]: 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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[-]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[-]: 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.
[x]: %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 in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
= EXTRA items
[Bug 1583448] Review Request: gap-pkg-crime - Group cohomology and Massey products
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1583448
Artur Iwicki changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fed...@svgames.pl
--- Comment #1 from Artur Iwicki ---
>License: GPL+
doc/crime.xml says "GNU Public Licence, version 2 or later (at your
preference)". As such, the License: tag should be "GPLv2+".
>URL: http://homepages.math.uic.edu/~marcus/Crime/
>Source0:
>http://homepages.math.uic.edu/~marcus/Crime/%{pkgname}-%{version}.tar.gz
You can use %{URL} as part of Source0 to avoid repetition.
--
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
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/P2U6HW64XSDKT7OLECPUNKHR7R3HL2Z3/
