[Bug 225811] Merge Review: gnome-applet-vm
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=225811 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #11 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-02-12 07:41:09 EDT --- OK I've applied the patch in comment 7. -- This package is APPROVED by rjones -- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225811] Merge Review: gnome-applet-vm
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=225811 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||rjo...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rjo...@redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225811] Merge Review: gnome-applet-vm
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=225811 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-02-11 07:36:36 EDT --- Taking for review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225811] Merge Review: gnome-applet-vm
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=225811 --- Comment #2 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-02-11 08:04:03 EDT --- gnome-applet-vm.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/vm-applet.schemas gnome-applet-vm.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libvirt gnome-applet-vm.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/pam.d/vm_applet_wrapper gnome-applet-vm.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/security/console.apps/vm_applet_wrapper gnome-applet-vm.x86_64: W: one-line-command-in-%postun /sbin/ldconfig 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225811] Merge Review: gnome-applet-vm
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=225811 --- Comment #3 from Karel Zak k...@redhat.com 2009-02-11 09:56:25 EDT --- Frankly, I want to orphan this package... it means that we need upstream maintainer too. I have already asked on many places, but without any result ;-( Daniel, any idea? Maybe someone around virtualization in RH... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225811] Merge Review: gnome-applet-vm
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=225811 --- Comment #4 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-02-11 11:42:41 EDT --- kzak: If you want, orphan this I will take it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225811] Merge Review: gnome-applet-vm
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=225811 --- Comment #5 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-02-11 12:39:49 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=331595) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=331595) Proposed patch to gnome-applet-vm.spec With the attached patch, we are left with this single rpmlint warning: gnome-applet-vm.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/vm-applet.schemas I think this is one we can ignore, since this looks like the place where gconf expects these schemata to be installed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225811] Merge Review: gnome-applet-vm
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=225811
--- Comment #6 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-02-11 12:51:33
EDT ---
+ rpmlint output
See comment 5.
+ package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines
+ specfile name matches the package base name
+ package should satisfy packaging guidelines
+ license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora
GPL+ is an acceptable license, and was set by spot, so
assume this is correct.
+ license matches the actual package license
+ %doc includes license file
+ spec file written in American English
+ spec file is legible
+ upstream sources match sources in the srpm
+ package successfully builds on at least one architecture
+ ExcludeArch bugs filed
Originally had ExclusiveArch i386, x86-64, but should build
everywhere so I removed this.
+ BuildRequires list all build dependencies
+ %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/*
+ binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun
Package called ldconfig, but contains no libraries, so I
removed that.
+ does not use Prefix: /usr
+ package owns all directories it creates
Originally tried to own /usr/share/pixmaps, but I fixed that.
+ no duplicate files in %files
+ %defattr line
+ %clean contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
+ consistent use of macros
+ package must contain code or permissible content
n/a large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage
+ files marked %doc should not affect package
n/a header files should be in -devel
n/a static libraries should be in -static
n/a packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig'
n/a libfoo.so must go in -devel
n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base
n/a packages should not contain libtool .la files
n/a packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file
I think this is not applicable because although this is a GUI
app, it is a Gnome panel plugin so doesn't need a desktop file.
+ packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages
+ %install must start with rm -rf %{buildroot} etc.
+ filenames must be valid UTF-8
Optional:
+ if there is no license file, packager should query upstream
n/a translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if
available
+ reviewer should build the package in mock
+ the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures
- review should test the package functions as described
+ scriptlets should be sane
n/a pkgconfig files should go in -devel
+ shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or
/usr/sbin
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225811] Merge Review: gnome-applet-vm
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=225811 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #331595|0 |1 is obsolete|| --- Comment #7 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-02-11 12:52:37 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=331596) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=331596) Proposed patch to gnome-applet-vm.spec Updated specfile patch. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225811] Merge Review: gnome-applet-vm
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=225811 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(crobi...@redhat.c ||om) --- Comment #8 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2009-02-11 12:53:56 EDT --- Cole, can you take a quick look at the proposed changes to the specfile in comment 7, and if you approve, say yea. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225811] Merge Review: gnome-applet-vm
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=225811 Cole Robinson crobi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(crobi...@redhat.c | |om) | --- Comment #9 from Cole Robinson crobi...@redhat.com 2009-02-11 14:49:27 EDT --- All the changes look good. What is the remaining process here? Do I need to apply the patch for all supported branches or is rawhide sufficient? Can the bug be closed after the patch is applied? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225811] Merge Review: gnome-applet-vm
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=225811 --- Comment #10 from Dan Horák d...@danny.cz 2009-02-12 02:40:08 EDT --- (In reply to comment #9) All the changes look good. What is the remaining process here? Do I need to apply the patch for all only in rawhide supported branches or is rawhide sufficient? Can the bug be closed after the patch is applied? depends on who is the owner and who is the reviewer, after reviewer will say APPROVED then the owner can close -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
