[Bug 798202] Review Request: python-ldappool - A connection pool for python-ldap
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=798202 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||python-ldappool-1.0-0.fc17 Resolution||ERRATA Last Closed||2012-04-11 23:44:21 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-04-11 23:44:21 EDT --- python-ldappool-1.0-0.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 798202] Review Request: python-ldappool - A connection pool for python-ldap
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=798202 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-03-28 01:55:13 EDT --- python-ldappool-1.0-0.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 798202] Review Request: python-ldappool - A connection pool for python-ldap
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=798202 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2012-03-26 14:20:31 EDT --- python-ldappool-1.0-0.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-ldappool-1.0-0.fc17 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 798202] Review Request: python-ldappool - A connection pool for python-ldap
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=798202 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 798202] Review Request: python-ldappool - A connection pool for python-ldap
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=798202 Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@zarb.org AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@zarb.org Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org 2012-03-24 02:40:42 EDT --- Is the package for EPEL ? ( as there is BuildRoot and %clean ) Also : - BuildRequires on python-devel should say what version of python need to be used http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires - the license should be in %doc, and since there is no lincese upstream, you should ask upstream to add it - the snippet for %python_sitelib is likely uneeded ( unless need to be pushed to EPEL ) - there is no %dist in the release - if the source cannot be downloaded, packager should give instruction on how to do it http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Troublesome_URLs - there is no %check to run the tests - the source code speak of having a license GPL or LGPL or MPL, so triple license. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 798202] Review Request: python-ldappool - A connection pool for python-ldap
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=798202 --- Comment #2 from Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com 2012-03-24 05:18:55 EDT --- 1. i'm dropping EPEL (I lack motivation to maintain these branches) 2. fixed since i'm dropping EPEL 3. ticket submitted: https://github.com/mozilla-services/ldappool/issues/2 4. fixed since i'm dropping EPEL 5. fixed 6. fixed 7. since it requires an LDAP server (installed and configured), not planned to do so in the near future 8. fixed new spec and src.rpm: http://hguemar.fedorapeople.org/review/python-ldappool.spec http://hguemar.fedorapeople.org/review/python-ldappool-1.0-0.fc16.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 798202] Review Request: python-ldappool - A connection pool for python-ldap
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=798202
--- Comment #3 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org 2012-03-24 06:04:54 EDT ---
- Since the package is noarch, this line is useless :
export CFLAGS=%{optflags}
- you should use %global, not %define ( first line of the spec )
I am rebuilding it in mock and testing it, so the review should be quick once
these 2 items are fixed
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 798202] Review Request: python-ldappool - A connection pool for python-ldap
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=798202 --- Comment #4 from Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com 2012-03-24 06:39:53 EDT --- My bad, these two bummers are fixed new spec and src.rpm: http://hguemar.fedorapeople.org/review/python-ldappool.spec http://hguemar.fedorapeople.org/review/python-ldappool-1.0-0.fc16.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 798202] Review Request: python-ldappool - A connection pool for python-ldap
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=798202
Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org 2012-03-24 06:52:11 EDT ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[x]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[-]: MUST 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 %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: No licenses found! Please check the source files for licenses
manually.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint python-ldappool-1.0-0.fc18.noarch.rpm
python-ldappool.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) ldap - lap, leap,
dapple
python-ldappool.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ldap - lap,
leap, dapple
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
rpmlint python-ldappool-1.0-0.fc18.src.rpm
python-ldappool.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) ldap - lap, leap, dapple
python-ldappool.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ldap - lap, leap,
dapple
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
/home/misc/checkout/git/FedoraReview/src/798202/ldappool-1.0.tar.gz :
MD5SUM this package : 2f2f9ca14dc36b432d2acd379d196062
MD5SUM upstream package : 2f2f9ca14dc36b432d2acd379d196062
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: SHOULD 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]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[x]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[x]:
[Bug 798202] Review Request: python-ldappool - A connection pool for python-ldap
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=798202 Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com 2012-03-24 07:39:21 EDT --- Thanks for the review ! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-ldappool Short Description: A connection pool for python-ldap Owners: hguemar Branches: f15 f16 f17 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 798202] Review Request: python-ldappool - A connection pool for python-ldap
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=798202 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com 2012-03-24 14:42:43 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
