[Bug 1858256] Review Request: rpm-git-tag-sort - Sorts git annotated tags according to topology and rpm version sorting
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1858256 cli...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2021-02-11 20:52:22 -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1858256] Review Request: rpm-git-tag-sort - Sorts git annotated tags according to topology and rpm version sorting
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1858256 --- Comment #11 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rpm-git-tag-sort -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1858256] Review Request: rpm-git-tag-sort - Sorts git annotated tags according to topology and rpm version sorting
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1858256 --- Comment #10 from Robert-André Mauchin --- (In reply to clime7 from comment #9) > Ok, great. I think it should be rather marked as 'W'. > > Anyway, do you have some package you would like me to review? Not at the moment, thank you. -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1858256] Review Request: rpm-git-tag-sort - Sorts git annotated tags according to topology and rpm version sorting
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1858256 --- Comment #9 from cli...@gmail.com --- Ok, great. I think it should be rather marked as 'W'. Anyway, do you have some package you would like me to 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1858256] Review Request: rpm-git-tag-sort - Sorts git annotated tags according to topology and rpm version sorting
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1858256 --- Comment #8 from Robert-André Mauchin --- It's a rpmlint warning: explicit-lib-dependency, not mandatory, just a recommendation. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_explicit_requires -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1858256] Review Request: rpm-git-tag-sort - Sorts git annotated tags according to topology and rpm version sorting
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1858256 --- Comment #7 from cli...@gmail.com --- So requires are unnecessary because they will dynamically added by rpm. I still don't think this should be an error. There is rarely anything wrong with being explicit instead of implicit (in programming circles). -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1858256] Review Request: rpm-git-tag-sort - Sorts git annotated tags according to topology and rpm version sorting
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1858256 --- Comment #6 from Robert-André Mauchin --- (In reply to clime7 from comment #5) > - These should be autodetected: > > rpm-git-tag-sort.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libgit2 > rpm-git-tag-sort.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency rpm-libs > > You mean I shouldn't put them into spec file as build requires? I think it > is not bad to be a little bit more explicit than necessary though... I don't think this is necessary, if correctly linked, the app will require the library with the correct soname it has been compiled with. -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1858256] Review Request: rpm-git-tag-sort - Sorts git annotated tags according to topology and rpm version sorting
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1858256 --- Comment #5 from cli...@gmail.com --- - These should be autodetected: rpm-git-tag-sort.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libgit2 rpm-git-tag-sort.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency rpm-libs You mean I shouldn't put them into spec file as build requires? I think it is not bad to be a little bit more explicit than necessary though... -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1858256] Review Request: rpm-git-tag-sort - Sorts git annotated tags according to topology and rpm version sorting
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1858256
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- These should be autodetected:
rpm-git-tag-sort.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libgit2
rpm-git-tag-sort.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency rpm-libs
Package is approved, please fix the aforementioned issue before import.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
Note: Sources not installed
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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", "GNU Lesser General Public License",
"BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License". 144 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/rpm-git-tag-sort/review-rpm-git-tag-
sort/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[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 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]: 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
= 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.
[x]:
[Bug 1858256] Review Request: rpm-git-tag-sort - Sorts git annotated tags according to topology and rpm version sorting
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1858256 --- Comment #3 from cli...@gmail.com --- I made most of changes according to the review. spec file: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/clime/rpm-git-tag-sort/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01565909-rpm-git-tag-sort/rpm-git-tag-sort.spec srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/clime/rpm-git-tag-sort/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01565909-rpm-git-tag-sort/rpm-git-tag-sort-0.1-1.fc33.src.rpm copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/clime/rpm-git-tag-sort/build/1565909/ I am unsure about the usage of LDFLAGS. When used, I couldn't link the project successfully on my machine due to missing symbols from libgit. I also did not provide %doc as I believe the project is quite minimal and rpm summary and command-line help is sufficient. Please take a look if you can. -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1858256] Review Request: rpm-git-tag-sort - Sorts git annotated tags according to topology and rpm version sorting
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1858256 --- Comment #2 from cli...@gmail.com --- Robert, thank you very much. I will address the issues today. I would argue that 0.0.git.2.498f832d.dirty.0nub0m is sortable but I will replace it by 0.1 if you agree (I am actually upstream too for 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1858256] Review Request: rpm-git-tag-sort - Sorts git annotated tags according to topology and rpm version sorting
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1858256
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Please detail how you generated the Sources
Source0:rpm-git-tag-sort-498f832d-dirty.tar.gz
Source1:rpm-git-tag-sort-c-vector-498f832d.tar.gz
- make → %make_build
- You should set Fedora build flags with %set_build_flags, and make sure that
the Makefile respect them (CFLAGS)
- make install root=%{buildroot} → Use DESTDIR instead of root in your
Makefile, and then use %make_install
- Provide a license file and install it with %license in %files. A README.md
as %doc would be nice too.
%files
/usr/bin/rpm-git-tag-sort
- Please provide a changelog entry
- The version is unsortable: 0.0.git.2.498f832d.dirty.0nub0m and the git hash
info should be included in Release not Version. I would use the syntax for a
prerelease and GIT snapshot:
Version: 0
Release: 0.1.20200717git498f832%{?dist}
--
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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
